Hi everyone , I came to know that the house of common has approved bill C 21 An act to amend the custom act . This bill requires the authorities to keep records of everyone entering or leaving Canada , does that mean RQ and similar procedures will no longer be necessary as CIC will have all specific dates a person enters and leaves Canada and there is no chance whatsoever to tell false information regarding your residence
Bill C21 Customs Act
- Thread starter omerhaha
- Start date
Probably NOT. Probably NOT by a big margin.
It is likely to significantly reduce the percentage of citizenship applications which are subject to non-routine processing related to residency and presence questions. Albeit this is likely to be an indirect, not direct, consequence. The more the pool of prospective applicants are aware that they need to provide complete, accurate, and precise presence calculations, and are in fact complete, accurate, and precise, the fewer instances in which IRCC will identify a need to request additional information and documentation related to presence.
Of course it will indeed make it easier for IRCC to identify errors and omissions, whether they are intentional or mere mistakes. Which could actually lead to more RQ related instances. But the latter is likely to be more than offset by applicants being aware of the need to be complete, accurate, and precise, leading to fewer applications submitted with deviations that will trigger the RQ related non-routine processing.
To be clear, there are and will continue to be many ways, many intentional and some unintentional ways, in which individuals can exit or enter Canada which are not necessarily tracked to their Canadian immigration client number. Obviously I and most others do not offer details about how individuals can deliberately do this, any more than we offer information about how to steal from banks. But many of them are rather obvious nonetheless.
And of course the more thorough the government's record-keeping, the more difficult it will be to get away with deliberately border crossing in a way that skirts the record capturing, and the more likely it will later become apparent even if one has appeared to do it successfully. So the better and more complete the government captures and maintains this information, the bigger the risk in attempting to skirt the record capturing.
No matter how thorough the government attempts to capture the enter/exit information for individuals, EACH PR WILL REMAIN THE ONE BEST SOURCE, the one best source in the whole world, TO CAPTURE AND MAINTAIN THIS INFORMATION, since the PR is the one person in the whole world who is FOR SURE there, in person, each and every time the PR leaves Canada, and each and every time the PR enters Canada.
IRCC will primarily use such information to check the accuracy of what the applicant submits (there really is very little excuse, other than typical minor mistakes we all make, for not submitting complete, accurate, and precise travel dates). Much like it has to now, but with increasing capability to identify when applicants give false information (intentionally or unintentionally).
Basically this legislation amounts to a HEADS-UP-folks. Keep good records. Get your information right. IRCC will have more cross-checking capability to determine if and when the applicant fails to get his or her information right.
No. The CBSA have been keeping entry and exit records for quite some time. I believe it was Chris Alexander who implemented it as the minister of immigration.
Hi , in this case why do they need so complicated procedures such as RQ to prove residency
RQ's are done by random or when fraud is suspected. I.e. If someone is claiming something other than what's on the system.
This is a more complicated subject than it might, on the surface, seem.
When IRCC apprehends the applicant's information is subject to question, it is IRCC's mandatory obligation to require the applicant affirmatively prove his or her case. With very narrow exceptions, the Minister (IRCC) does not have any legal authority to grant citizenship UNLESS a proper application has been made which establishes the applicant's qualification for the grant of citizenship. Thus, if there is a question, IRCC CANNOT, not legally, grant citizenship unless and until the question is resolved in favour of the applicant.
The burden of proof is on the applicant. An omniscient power, deity or AI or whatever, may know for certain an applicant was present in Canada 1200, 1300, even 1800 days within the relevant five years, BUT IRCC CANNOT, not legally, grant this individual citizenship unless and until the individual PROVES he or she was actually physically present in Canada at least 1095 days during the relevant five years.
As long as IRCC's review of the information indicates the applicant's application sufficiently documents facts which show the applicant is qualified for the grant of citizenship, IRCC basically, more or less, grants citizenship based on the information provided by the applicant. Of course IRCC employs multiple methods to cross-check (verify) the applicant's information, at least sufficiently so that IRCC is satisfied there is no reason to question or doubt, let alone challenge, the information the applicant has provided. (Allowing for typical minor mistakes.)
BUT when IRCC comes across reasons to question what the applicant has submitted, IRCC is obligated by law to NOT grant citizenship. Again, the burden of proof is on the applicant. At the same time, Canada is a rule of law country which embraces due process or "fair procedure" requirements, so applicants must be given a fair opportunity to respond, an opportunity to make their case, to prove they are in fact qualified.
That is what RQ really is. It is first a notice to the applicant that IRCC is not satisfied the applicant has sufficiently established qualification for citizenship, and it is secondly a rather detailed enumeration of the information the applicant needs to submit in order to meet the burden of proving qualification. It is comparable to a fairness letter in other contexts. It is notice to the applicant that the information provided so far does not meet the burden of proof, and an opportunity for the applicant to further respond by submitting information and evidence (mostly documents) which will meet the burden of proof.
As I have oft noted, IRCC primarily uses information about the applicant and related, collateral information, to check the veracity of the applicant's information. For example, while IRCC may sometimes (such as in a RQ case referral to a Citizenship Judge) build a calculation of travel history based on information like the individual's CBSA travel history, this is mostly about explaining what is wrong about the applicant's version . . . and, moreover, this is an explanation presented to the CJ NOT to the applicant (applicant is merely issued the RQ and not given an explanation about what or why IRCC is questioning the applicant's case).
The applicant is merely given the opportunity to more thoroughly document his or her version, by being given the RQ which solicits specific information and evidence (mostly documents) which are relevant to making a factual determination . . . AND IT IS IMPORTANT to understand, that factual determination is NOT about recalculating how much the applicant was present or absent, BUT IS ABOUT DETERMINING IF THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE BURDEN OF PROOF, about ascertaining if the applicant's information and evidence PROVES THE APPLICANT WAS PRESENT AT LEAST 1095 DAYS IN THE ELIGIBILITY PERIOD.
Perhaps the most salient example illustrating what this means is the case in which the applicant submitted school records to show when her children were in school in Canada, to corroborate her other information and evidence about when she was present in Canada. Problem was the school records showed the children were in school during a period of time (a couple or so weeks) when the applicant had reported she and the children were abroad. On its face this might appear to show the applicant should get credit for more days in Canada. The Citizenship Judge, HOWEVER, did NOT give the applicant more credit for that period BUT RATHER (as apparently the Minister had urged in the FPT referral to the CJ, and explicitly argued in the Federal Court) considered this to show the applicant's version was NOT accurate, NOT credible, and thus this was part of the reasoning for concluding the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof resulting in the application being denied.
In other words, evidence which tended to indicate the applicant may have been IN CANADA a period of time IN ADDITION to the times she reported being in Canada, was used as a reason to conclude the applicant failed to prove she was in Canada enough to meet the qualifications. (Because the evidence showed, according to the Minister and the CJ, the applicant's accounting was not sufficiently credible to prove when she was in Canada.)
Personally I thought that reasoning was erroneous and perhaps even unreasonable. The format of the school records suggested the attendance record probably indicated a period of time when the children were enrolled and not necessarily about when they were physically present on given days, so to my perspective the records did not contradict, at least not necessarily so, the applicant's report about a couple or so weeks abroad during that period. For purposes of appeal, the difference between a decision which is erroneous and one that is unreasonable is huge. The Federal Court can conclude the CJ's decision was erroneous but within a range reasonable people might have differing views, in which event the CJ's decision MUST be upheld. ONLY IF the CJ's decision is found to be UNREASONABLE can the Federal Court rule it invalid. That is, a WRONG decision is NOT enough to get a decision reversed on appeal (to be clear, this is a well-worn standard and is perhaps one of the most commonly employed principles in appellate review).
With some exceptions, the issuance of RQ (and other presence-related requests not so extensive or intrusive as full blown RQ) is FACT-BASED, CRITERIA-DRIVEN.
While historically the criteria threshold for issuing RQ has varied extensively, and during one period of time in particular it was a rather low threshold (applicants reporting any period of self-employment or unemployment were automatically issued RQ in 2012, for example), these days IRCC has more tools to distinguish minor deviations from those discrepancies tending to invite concern or suspicion, and IRCC has some less-extensive, less-intrusive procedures (CIT 0520 for example) for obtaining additional information without imposing the full-blown RQ (CIT 0171), so it is increasingly apparent that RQ is now reserved for cases in which IRCC employs fairly limited criteria in deciding, BASED ON THE FACTS in the individual case, to choose which applicants are issued RQ. Such that, it now appears RQ is rather uncommon (in 2012, for example, there was a period in which more than one-in-four applicants were issued RQ; historically it has tended to be between one-in-eight and one-in-ten, and while the government no longer shares the data from which such information can be gleaned, the percentage now appears to be much lower). Uncommon but, it warrants a reminder, probably an indication IRCC perceives a serious problem with the application. More re RQ criteria below.
The RANDOM version of RQ is the PPQ-QAE. It is explicitly a quality assurance exercise. It is feasible a small percentage of RQ (CIT 0171) were randomly selected, but again generally RQ is FACT-BASED, CRITERIA-DRIVEN.
Suspected Fraud is a separate AND SERIOUS matter. When fraud is suspected it is more likely there will be a referral to either CBSA or the RCMP or both, for INVESTIGATION. This is unusual, if not relatively RARE. While I have not seen internal documents recently confirming the policy and practice continues to be what internal memos and documents revealed a few years ago, but the last such internal information I have seen clearly indicated that suspected-fraud-cases are categorized and handled separately from so-called presence-cases, the latter being cases such as I discuss above, cases in which IRCC sees some reason to question or be concerned about the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant. The latter are otherwise, typically, referred to as RQ'd-cases.
General observations:
Scores and scores of applicants get their travel dates wrong. Usually this is merely being off by a day or three. Historically scores of applicants reported the date of exit based on a passport stamp for the date they entered another country, which is often wrong by a day or two, especially for red eye and trans-Pacific flights, or off by even more if there was a significant layover in a country which did not stamp the traveler's passport. And more than a few are off this way for more than one or three trips. And applicants are also commonly off by omitting a trip or two, due to oversight or similar mistake.
IRCC has extensive experience dealing with minor mistakes of this sort, and while applicants should make a diligent, concerted effort to get all their travel information as precisely correct as possible, most of the time such errors do NOT cause the application to become non-routine, let alone significantly problematic or otherwise resulting in full-blown RQ.
For example, it is not uncommon for applicants to report that the interviewer asked about a trip that was not declared in the presence calculation, was satisfied by the applicant's response (typically in the nature, oh, I forgot about that one), and there was no delay or RQ related process. Anecdotal reporting in this forum includes omissions involving three weeks or more, but still proceeding to the oath ceremony within the routine timeline. (Obviously these applicants had a comfortable margin over the minimum.)
While the criteria IRCC now uses to decide who is issued RQ is strictly confidential, there is no doubt the decision-making is FACT-BASED, CRITERIA DRIVEN. And the criteria are almost certainly derivative of previously employed criteria, much like the triage criteria in the File Requirements Checklist implemented during the Harper years was in significant part derivative of the reasons-to-question-residency previously implemented by a Liberal government. The latter was shared publicly, in the old CP 5 Operational Manual. The triage criteria was accidentally leaked, and then widely shared online, when an individual applicant was mistakenly given a copy of the File Requirements Checklist in response to an ATIP request, and shared it. Then many of us older participants in these forums also obtained a large number of internal memos (through the ATI process, which should not be confused with the ATIP process for obtaining personal records) that revealed (with more than a little redacted) some of the subsequent modifications to how the triage criteria were used.