ATIP Short by 5days on residency

[links18]

CO can approve known physical prescence shortfall cases w/o referring to CJ. They are fully empowered to administer the Koo test on their own if they want to (as explained in various CIC operation manuals). But the bigger point in this case is that it is not even clear this is an actual short fall case. The OP has expressed doubts that he really was short on physical presence days. As such, and given the CIC identified shortfall is so insignificant, I think OP stands some decent chance of convincing CO to approve. No guarantee offered.

 

[arambi]

Agree

CO can approve known physical prescence shortfall cases w/o referring to CJ. They are fully empowered to administer the Koo test on their own if they want to (as explained in various CIC operation manuals). But the bigger point in this case is that it is not even clear this is an actual short fall case. The OP has expressed doubts that he really was short on physical presence days. As such, and given the CIC identified shortfall is so insignificant, I think OP stands some decent chance of convincing CO to approve. No guarantee offered.

 

[Politren]

The old rules were full with subjectivity .

The system was totally broken before June 11th last year.

Thank God that all that is already in the past.

 

[Exports]

Exports
Thank you for summarising.


He is using very advanced level of English for a lot of newcomers to understand but that does NOT means that the information provided by him should be treated as the most truthful point of view.

Plz try to understand the background of the person with the style of language/ writing. He/ she could be a lawyer just trying to help out by giving a piece of advice. By the way I am not supporting any thought or suggesting anything. It is only at the personal capacity. I appreciate for the time and efforts out by anyone to take a clue..
I noticed this forum at the final stage only after the test. Had I known this forum could have taken some advice/ hints... But bygone is bygone- we are sharing only our experiences so that anyone seeking advice shouldn't fall in the same situation.

 

[Politren]

Plz try to understand the background of the person with the style of language/ writing. He/ she could be a lawyer just trying to help out by giving a piece of advice. By the way I am not supporting any thought or suggesting anything. It is only at the personal capacity. I appreciate for the time and efforts out by anyone to take a clue..
I noticed this forum at the final stage only after the test. Had I known this forum could have taken some advice/ hints... But bygone is bygone- we are sharing only our experiences so that anyone seeking advice shouldn't fall in the same situation.

Under the old rules, with all that subjectivity for the decision making it seems that all advices were helpful and wrong at the same time. Absolutely no definitive standards in the decision making.

When we have such working style , we have a total prove that the system was broken. And that's the truth , the system was indeed broken.

How can someone give a proper advice in a system full with subjectivity. That means that the advice is also subjective.
The old rules was a nightmare.

At the beginning I was angry that I missed the cut off date by couple of days, but now I am feeling happy that I will apply in a much better working rules with more access by IRCC to more personal and essential information regarding the applicants.

Under the old rules CIC was almost totally blindfolded prone to far too much abuse from the scammers.

That was definitely NOT working system.

 

[dpenabill]

CO can approve known physical prescence shortfall cases w/o referring to CJ. They are fully empowered to administer the Koo test on their own if they want to (as explained in various CIC operation manuals). But the bigger point in this case is that it is not even clear this is an actual short fall case. The OP has expressed doubts that he really was short on physical presence days. As such, and given the CIC identified shortfall is so insignificant, I think OP stands some decent chance of convincing CO to approve. No guarantee offered.

This, I think, is an accurate assessment of the OP's situation.

While it is not clear this is a shortfall case, since the OP declared APP over the 1095 day APP threshold, given the amount of time that has elapsed since the test/interview, the request for the I-94, and the indication in the ATIP of 1091 days APP, it is likely the application is being reviewed for a residency assessment. Difficult to forecast how this goes. My sense is that if the Officer reviewing the file has little concern about the OP's credibility, the oath will be scheduled. If, in contrast, there is some concern about the OP's credibility, there might be RQ.

The discrepancy itself, between what the OP declared and what is indicated IRCC has ascertained, appears to be relatively substantial albeit not egregiously so. It appears the OP applied declaring approximately 1109 or so days APP (met 1095 threshold Feb 2, 2015, and applied Feb 16). 18 day discrepancy is well over the guideline in use back in 2012 and 2013 (per internal memos obtained by ATI requests) for triggering RQ. We know the RQ criteria has changed significantly since then, but the criteria is considered confidential information and it is difficult for the public to get this information (what was obtained back in 2012 and 2013 was obtained in the course of many ATI requests, by multiple persons, and demanded close reading and analysis, comparing the information in the several responses, which was largely limited to internal memos only indirectly referring to the criteria, and as time went on more and more was redacted from these responses). In any event, the shortfall (as indicated in the ATIP) is small enough, that if the reviewing Officer concludes any discrepancy is incidental, an unintentional or largely innocent mistake, there is good odds the next step will be the oath. But there is no guarantee that is how the officer will see this. So the next step could easily be RQ.

All the OP needs to do for now is to wait, wait and watch eCas and the mail for what comes next.





Some further, long observations re tangential discussions:

I am not an authority. I am not an expert. I do not purport to be an authority or an expert. Indeed, many times in my posts I often include a reminder that I am no expert.

However, I make a concerted effort to be accurate. In particular, I make a concerted effort to do the homework and cite actual authority in addition to posting based on information provided by actual authority, including formal information provided by IRCC and official information as is provided in the Parliamentary Business webpages, the official statutory and regulatory provisions at the Justice Laws website, and the official interpretation and application of law prescribed in Federal Court decisions (regarding actual cases).

In addition to making a concerted effort to cite authoritative sources, I also make a concerted effort to distinguish when I am offering opinion, and I usually couch my opinions in language which indicates the nature of the opinion. For example, I often refer to what I guess, and more than occasionally emphasize that it really is a guess. Otherwise I typically couch opinions as "my impression," "my sense," "my take," which words are employed to express varying degrees of confidence in the opinion I am expressing. Otherwise, some of my opinions are derived from careful analysis of reliable information (like official statutes and court decisions) and my language for these is more declarative, but for these I nonetheless try to explain both the underlying authoritative sources and my reasoning. Hence, my posts tend to go way longer than most. I try to provide information which those who might actually consider it in the course of their own decision-making can (1) look to the authoritative sources for confirmation, and (2) use their own best judgment in applying, to their own situation, the observations I have made.

But yes, indeed, I make mistakes. Too many. And I am always glad to see someone correct my mistakes. The objective, after all, is to engage in a joint effort to illuminate real information as well as we can. Well, that is the objective of many participants here, but unfortunately not all.

In contrast:

dpenabill,

I can quote several of your long reads prior to C-6 when you insisted that restoring pre-PR credit will take years or that C-6 second reading will take place sometime in Fall. So, as the say in Japan, "Saru mo ki kara ochiru".

No. Not true. Not merely a mis-characterization, not merely misleading, but more of the same outright misinformation.


Observations made after and regarding Bill C-6:

While I initially said I thought it is likely the second reading would not be done for months, I have never "insisted" on any time line, have mostly and consistently avoided even guessing what the timeline will be, and have always couched my timeline observations in terms of likelihood. And, to the extent I have offered an opinion, as usual I also explained my reasons for my opinion so those who read my opinion can draw their own conclusions.

That said, the overwhelming majority of my posts regarding the Bill C-6 time line are similar to the following:

My post in topic titled "Re: bill c-6 - when is going to be approved?" March 3:

Some time this year, probably, but no guarantees.

Same topic, March 7:

While I am not joining the office pool bets for Bill C-6, I have suggested this year OR next year.

If compelled to narrow it more, I'd suggest it is unlikely the the 3/5 rule will take effect before the Fall, at the soonest, regardless of the timeline for Bill C-6 to reach Royal Assent.

Same topic, March 14:

While the timeline for Bill C-6 cannot be reliably predicted, it is likely it will be adopted and become law.

In another topic:

Speculating on the timeline for Bill C-6 is just that, speculating. Sometime this year or next year is as good a guess anyone can reasonably make.

Consistently, in another topic a couple days ago I posted:

While I have avoided, and for the most part will continue to do so, the guessing game as to when certain provisions in Bill C-6 (like the 3/5 rule, which is the one of most interest here) will come into force, I would caution against planning based on an expectation of when the 3/5 rule will apply.

In contrast, the Bill itself is more or less likely to proceed through the process fairly quickly, subject to potential stalling by the Senate, given that (1) adopting Bill C-6 into law will demonstrate the government is fulfilling its election campaign promises, even if parts do not actually come into force until much later; and (2) there appears to be some urgency in getting the repeal of Subsection 10.(2) in the Citizenship Act done, which is one of the provisions in Bill C-6 which will take force as soon as there is Royal Assent (thus effecting the a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian policy).

In sum: I would caution against expecting the 3/5 rule to take effect any time soon no matter how quickly Bill C-6 is adopted.

Which is consistent with what I posted in another topic:

It is worth noting, however, that repealing section 10.(2) and related provisions in the Citizenship Act (those provisions authorizing revocation of citizenship for crimes committed while a citizen, said to create two-tiered citizenship) appears to be a quite high priority for this government, and per Bill C-6 the other changes are being included in getting this campaign promise done. So there is some indication this legislation could proceed on a relative fast-track.

Actual date of adoption, Royal Assent, and in particular implementation of requirement changes for grant citizenship, nonetheless remains UNKNOWN. Best speculation appears to be late this year to late next year, with perhaps better odds leaning toward before summer 2017, but that is far from certain and within that time frame one can only guess, guess wildly.

Prior to Bill C-6:

Contrary to the misinformation, my observations about prospective changes (back in 2015, between the election of the Liberal government but before a Bill was actually tabled), did not insist on any particular time line nor any specific changes beyond restating what it was the Liberal government had said it was going to do. I did caution against making plans based on any changes taking place soon, emphasizing that the legislative process takes time, and that it could take years (with detailed explanation for this observation) . . . not that it would take years, but that it could, so do not plan on it happening real soon. And indeed, there is still a significant probability that the restoration of credit for PR time, for example, will not take effect until sometime in 2017, and at the soonest it is likely to be at least late 2016.

Some of my opinions have been wrong. It would be amazing if I was never wrong. I am not amazing.

For example, I thought, and made such an observation (probably more than once), that the government might proceed to repeal Section 10.(2) in the Citizenship Act sooner and separately, given the high profile priority this had in the election campaign promises, and later table separate legislation to do things like restore pre-landing credit and repeal the provision requiring an intent to continue to reside in Canada. I overlooked the obvious, which is what I perceive to be happening, that the government could essentially do both, that is it could table a Bill (and it has, tabling Bill C-6) which repeals Section 10.(2) and which also makes changes such as restoring pre-landing credit and repealing the intent to reside requirement, and then pursue the adoption of the Bill on a fairly fast track, so as to quickly repeal Section 10.(2), in the meantime allowing (per a subsequent decision as to actual date) the later implementation of changes to grant citizenship requirements (which per Bill C-6, as presently constituted, includes the new 3/5 rule in addition to restoring pre-landing credit and repealing the intent to reside requirement).

Otherwise, however, and generally my observations about prospective changes prior to when the Bill itself was actually tabled did not insist on any timeline nor even as to what the changes would be.

In particular, prior to the tabling of Bill C-6, for example, the following are typical observations I made:

There are real changes on the table. During the formal consultation process the scope of what changes will be included in the actual legislation is likely to change, probably expanded in some respects, potentially pulled back in some.

Personally I doubt the government will cut back the 4/6 requirement itself, but I also recognize that doing so is nonetheless a significant possibility . . . and that the extent of that possibility is at least in part tied to the input the public has between now and when the legislation is tabled.

As to when a Bill to amend the Citizenship Act will actually be tabled, we can only guess. Doing so, however, is among the Minister's priorities, as mandated by the Prime Minister, but there are also many other priorities, there being a great deal to do.

Another post:

Guessing, my guess is that the 3/4 rule is not going to be part of the changes proposed, but as I have said before, this probably depends on what input the public has and whether or not a strong case for bring back a 3/4 rule is made during the consultation process.

Another early January post:

Explicit indications of changes to be made to the Citizenship Act in regards to provisions adopted in Bill C-24 include:

Justin Trudeau's mandate letter to Minister McCallum specifically called for the Minister to work with the Public Safety Minister to draft legislation to repeal provisions of the Citizenship Act which would revoke citizenship of dual nationals for acts committed while a citizen.

The mandate letter also specifically instructed the Minister to draft legislation to restore credit for temporary residence in Canada prior to becoming a PR, and to remove the provision requiring a declaration of intent to reside in Canada as a requirement for grant citizenship (naturalized citizenship).

Changes in legislation take time. In the context of typical timelines for such legislation, "soon" means within the next two years, perhaps three year. Whether these changes will be made within the next two or three years, that is "soon," is difficult to forecast. But at the least, the government has initiated the process by mandating these changes are a "priority" for the responsible Minister.

Regarding language difficulties versus outright erroneous information:

dpenabill

Keep in mind that most of us are not that high in English proficiency. Most of us (The PR) are coming from the 3rd world and our mother language is completely different.

Me personally , I have big difficulties to understand your long statements full with some kind of sophisticated English words which I hear for the first time and therefore have no idea what they mean.

There is no communication in that way.

Use short post with easy to understand English.

To be clear, I did not draft the language in Bill C-6. You are the one who posted that the repeal of the intent to reside requirement will not be retroactive. That was totally wrong. Indeed, the way in which this provision is handled by Bill C-6 will make it as if that provision never existed. It is, as I said, as retroactive as any law can be.

There is no blaming this on language difficulties.

Beyond that, I understand that my vocabulary and sentence structure and length of composition are probably difficult enough for more than a few whose first language is English, let alone for those it is not. I have been a career writer researching and writing about the law for more than a quarter century, and a jurist for nearly four decades, and before that . . . let's just acknowledge I am an old man with a deeply entrenched writing style, mostly geared to addressing a professional audience.

Sometimes I make a concerted effort to more simply and directly state my observations. I do this, when I have time, when responding specifically to a query posed by someone who clearly needs things stated more directly and simply.

But my longer expository posts are not for everyone. I expect most participants to skip or at least skim over them. I am not trying to engage in casual conversation. Different participants in the forum fill various roles. I make an effort to fill in the gaps, address the nuances, illuminate the formalities, identify and cite authoritative and official sources of information, to in essence provide in-depth analysis and reporting on certain issues. Not for everyone. Not for most actually.

I also recognize that more than a few are viewing this site on something like a smartphone, not even a pad size device let alone a computer monitor (in contrast I am looking at an array of monitors, monitor to the left of me, monitor to the right, and a big one in the middle; the smallest of these is a 23" monitor; thus I can see, just glancing to the right or left, the statutes and regulations and IRCC web pages all at the same time while I am keying a response). I realize my posts are nearly impossible to read on such devices. But anyone who is not interested in my analysis, or otherwise in-depth reporting, should be able to ignore and scroll past. My posts are not for everyone. I hope they offer some information of interest and use, for some, but again I realize they are not for everyone.

To some extent, part of what I try to do is fill in the background, context, sources, and reasoning, in the hope that those who are here to provide others information read enough to help them be more informed and in turn more informative. I certainly rely on many others here to learn things I do not already know, to alert me of changes, to alert me of mistakes I have made, and to help me get a better understanding of various aspects in the process affecting citizenship applicants and PRs dealing with PR issues (these are the two areas of discussion I engage in). Meaning, again, many of my posts are not for everyone, or even most.

 

[Politren]

Of course that I will post what I understand with my much poorer compared to your super advanced English abilities.

It is absolutely normal for a newcomer PR like me coming like most of us the PR from poor 3rd world countries to have difficulties understanding the official languages from Bills. Especially when all our lives we were using our mother languages back home.

That's why it's very funny all that professor like mistake corrections.

Approx. 40%~60% of your posts dpenabill remain NOT understood by PRs coming from the 3rd world like me.

So what is the point in them when we don't understand them.
Of course that doesn't mean that the information in this highly advanced literature should be treated as correct.

You are just another representative from the general public like all of us. Nothing more, Nothing less.

 

[links18]

Re: Subjectivity in old rules regarding "residency" and "physical presence." If OP's case were to be decided under the current rules, there would be no way a CO could approve. If the CO officer ascertained--rightly or wrongly--that OP was short on physical presence--even by a few days and even as a result of what might be an innocent mistake--they could not approve his file and OP would be facing a CJ hearing in which the only avenue open would be to contest the accuracy of IRCC/CIC's information. IMHO, that hardly seems like a just outcome in a case like this.

 

[Politren]

I definitely prefer the new rules with strict eligibility criteria like it is now. Even with 1 day short the application should be treated as UNeligible under the 4/6 rule. Which it seems is the way IRCC applies the rule and I fully support that.

 

[links18]

I definitely prefer the new rules with strict eligibility criteria like it is now. Even with 1 day short the application should be treated as UNeligible under the 4/6 rule. Which it seems is the way IRCC applies the rule and I fully support that.

You have made your position on this abundantly clear and it is a valid position. My point is that eliminating residency subjectivity doesn't necessarily always lead to just results.

 

[Politren]

You have made your position on this abundantly clear and it is a valid position. My point is that eliminating residency subjectivity doesn't necessarily always lead to just results.

But at least it will fight against the fraud much more effectively when we have the strict physical presence requirement with all the internal business branches at IRCC disposal.

I don't like the Conservatives but I give them big credit for building the current structure in IRCC decision making and the authority IRCC to access much more essential personal information from other agencies.

Definitely a huge step in the right direction.

 

[dpenabill]

Re: Subjectivity in old rules regarding "residency" and "physical presence." If OP's case were to be decided under the current rules, there would be no way a CO could approve. If the CO officer ascertained--rightly or wrongly--that OP was short on physical presence--even by a few days and even as a result of what might be an innocent mistake--they could not approve his file and OP would be facing a CJ hearing in which the only avenue open would be to contest the accuracy of IRCC/CIC's information. IMHO, that hardly seems like a just outcome in a case like this.

Concur.

This is one of the more draconian effects of a strict physical presence requirement. And it will also apply under the new 3/5 rule IF and when it takes effect.

There have been cases like this under the old law. Not too long ago the Federal Court granted CIC's appeal of a CJ's approval for an applicant who was, indeed, relatively a few days short of the 1095 APP threshold. The CJ even largely addressed the typical factors in a qualitative or Koo test of residency, positively, but the CJ's formal decision explicitly referred to approving the applicant on the basis of the P**** (I forget the spelling) physical presence test. Because the applicant was clearly short a few days, that decision could not be upheld, as the applicant did not meet that test. (Nonetheless, that case went back to another CJ to decide, and that CJ could be more careful about the basis for the decision and still approve based on Koo criteria, or that CJ could apply the strict presence test and deny the application.)

Recourse is for applicant to be well aware of the risks attendant any failure to accurately account for all travel, and if the applicant has not kept exact records for himself or herself, to be sure to (1) acknowledge estimating attendant submission of physical presence calculation (instructions specifically address doing this), and (2) be sure to have a very safe margin.


Note: Qualitative test is not a subjective test:

The Koo criteria, for example, consists of fairly lengthy and detailed factors which are to be weighed objectively, and in particular, while the test is qualitative the CJ's decision must be based on objective facts.

I realize the general usage of "subjective" is broader than its actual meaning, and that many use it to refer to a more or less discretionary judgment in contrast to something like a calculation. What is really meant in this context is that the decision-maker's subjective state of mind plays a role in what the decision maker decides. Thus, for example, the decision may be influenced by personal biases or personal impression. Yes, any qualitative test is subject to a certain degree of subjectivity, of this sort, in the mind of the decision-maker.

But for those involved in a residency case, such as the OP might be if not scheduled for the oath next, which is to say for anyone responding to RQ, the key is to submit objective documentation, objective evidence to support not just the accounting of days present in Canada, but to objectively support all the relevant indications of residing in Canada, place of residence, work or other activity, and so on. And the decision will depend on those objective facts established by the evidence.

Moreover, even the physical presence test can involve an exercise of judgment by the decision-maker which involves a potential for this kind of subjectivity. The typical case involves many broad periods of time in which the applicant is dependent on the decision maker concluding the applicant was actually present in Canada between the last known date of entry and the next date of exit. The decision maker will typically consider evidence of place of abode and employment, where the applicant's children were living and attending school, and so on, in deciding whether to believe the applicant's declaration he or she was in fact present between last date of entry and next date of exit. The fact that a spouse and the children were living abroad for long periods, for example, does not directly prove the applicant was not in Canada during that time, or that he was in Canada during that time. But a decision maker can consider this in making inferences about whether the applicant has proven he was in Canada or not. Thus a bit of a subjective bias, the idea that a parent is more likely living where his children are living, can influence the decision maker.

In any event, the decision made will depend on the facts in the case. The stronger the facts supporting residency and presence, the better the odds of success. This is true whether the test is qualitative or a strict presence test.

Of course that I will post what I understand with my much poorer compared to your super advanced English abilities.

Short version: you can skip my posts. They are not compulsory reading.

I do not always point out, let alone emphasize mistakes. The site is rife with exaggerations and errors and outright misrepresentations. Most of these get ignored, by me and most others. Most are obviously not valid, and there is no indication anyone is being led astray.

Some errors essentially demand correction. Like your totally erroneous statements about the intent to reside requirement. Like the multiple posts in this topic that the OP has virtually a zero chance to be approved and granted citizenship. Like the assertion that there is no chance a shortfall applicant will take the oath without an order from the Federal Court affirming a Citizenship Judge's decision.

When I make a correction about something like the effect of Bill C-6 in repealing the intent to reside requirement, I do not post a simple declarative rebuttal. I am, after all, not posting opinion when I do this. Thus I reference and cite and discuss in context the official source. In this particular instance, that was sections 1(5), 16, and 17 in Bill C-6. I want it to be clear that it is not just that I have an opinion contrary to yours, but that what I am stating about this is fact, in this case what the proposed law specifically prescribes. Cited with source so that no one has to rely on my saying this but can check the official source for himself.


By the way:

Assuming this is in reference to finally adopting a firm standard for determining who is qualified for citizenship, I agree:

Definitely a huge step in the right direction.

The previous law was a morass of inconsistency and unpredictability. Federal Court justices railed against it and begged for it to be revised for more than three decades before the physical presence test was adopted. It was unjust in many, many ways, but mostly in that different Officers and different CJs could apply completely different standards to applicants otherwise in the exact same position. And there was no way to reliably predict which test would be applied, even right up to the CJ hearing itself. And the courts repeatedly ruled (with a couple exceptions) that the applicant did not need to be informed which test was being applied, and the CJ did not need to justify or explain why this or that test was applied. Crazy law actually.

Which is not to say the best solution is a physical presence test. This is something which could be approached in multiple ways. The new 3/5 rule makes a lot of sense to me, even if some find it too generous, too easy. At the least it sets a firm minimum standard and otherwise allows PRs a fair amount of flexibility.

 

[Politren]

Assuming this is in reference to finally adopting a firm standard for determining who is qualified for citizenship, I agree:

The previous law was a morass of inconsistency and unpredictability. Federal Court justices railed against it and begged for it to be revised for more than three decades before the physical presence test was adopted. It was unjust in many, many ways, but mostly in that different Officers and different CJs could apply completely different standards to applicants otherwise in the exact same position. And there was no way to reliably predict which test would be applied, even right up to the CJ hearing itself. And the courts repeatedly ruled (with a couple exceptions) that the applicant did not need to be informed which test was being applied, and the CJ did not need to justify or explain why this or that test was applied. Crazy law actually.

Which is not to say the best solution is a physical presence test. This is something which could be approached in multiple ways. The new 3/5 rule makes a lot of sense to me, even if some find it too generous, too easy. At the least it sets a firm minimum standard and otherwise allows PRs a fair amount of flexibility.

This is why we still see the negative remedies from the old rules even today, keeping in mind that the old rules are not effective for already a substantial amount of time. Some people are actually still understanding that their waiting has just started. Waiting for the UNKNOWN.

Crazy old rules indeed.

 

[links18]

RE: Subjectivity and Residency Determination Again. What was "subjective" under the old rules was not the Koo criteria itself (or other qualitative test of residency), but the fact that not everyone got the opportunity to be judged under Koo. The decision maker could apply Koo or not based on nothing other than their personal whim. Some applicants were judged on strict physical presence, while others got the chance to make an argument under a qualitative test. The "subjectivity" of that could be fixed simply by requiring, under statute, decision makers to apply Koo--or whatever other qualitative standard--in cases where strict physical presence requirements haven't been met (or there is an open question as to whether they have been met). Of course, this does not mean that all similarly situated persons would receive the same end result. That is because not every fact finder reaches the same conclusion. However, this is nothing that doesn't happen in any court of law every single day. It is the entire reason why there are judges, juries and multiple levels of appeal. Over time, a body of precedent would develop that would tend to reduce the range of discrepancies between different cases. This is what jurisprudence is supposed to be about. But in the end, attempting to eliminate all subjectivity from the process is illusory and will inevitably create its own form of injustice--such as in cases like the OP's.

 

[Politren]

If the OP got this information only from ATIP on his file that he is short, there is a chance that this note have been placed there by mistake and actually everything with his application might be OK.

I am saying that based on multiple recent reports from people who reported blatant discrepancies with their ATIP notes and the actual state of their applications.

I for example would never order ATIP and I would never consider it as a serious and reliable source of information. And to be honest I am still wondering why so many people order this ATIP notes. For me these notes are worthless. The ATIP notes can only create confusion. Which is most probably the case here.