Onyxia said:
Hello I'm posting since I would like some insight as to what happened and what may be coming, or if this is at all normal.
I applied for citizenship in 2013 (arrived in Canada in 2001 as a student) with 1113 days physically present in Canada. A few months after applying I got an rq which I replied promptly to. On July I was invited to take the test and scored 20/20. My interview after the test was short and pleasant. The lady said she didn't need to review anything and my file looked good and to await my oath in one to three months. Since I didn't recieve any reply or decision made I filed an atip. There were no new notes in my file other than the test letter, test results (approved) and that a hearing was not required. I this expected to recieve a decision made within the next few months. Today I was instead called in for an interview (same day). The person interviewing me asked questions about one of my passports (I didn't renew since I've only travelled within Canada and found no need to do so), my entry into Canada and other residency type questions (work history, work address, husbands work, where we met, and other small detailed information of my life). At no time was I told that I didn't have enough days present nor did they question my travel history.
As such Im a bit confused as to this interview. Did I do something wrong? Am I being sent to see a judge even if my atip said a hearing was not required? Thanks for any input/advice you may have!
Onyxia said:
Thanks Bigudi,
I can't say for certain. I know applicants from the Middle East typically seem to be rqed more often but I'm not Middle Eastern or have any ties to the Middle East. The interviewer seemed rather interested in that expired and not renewed passport (as also all the residency type question) but as I explained to him I had no need to renew it (and if I did the one I provided would be marked as expired showing I had a new one hidden if that was their concern).
It's odd because I supplied 4 years worth of credit card and bank statements, rental leases, and income taxes so I dot know why my residency still seems to be a concern?
Onyxia said:
That's correct I had the interview within a few hours of being called to come in. I was lucky to still have the folder I took to my exam with all the documents I supplied to the rq but they didn't ask me for any of them, not even the passport in question.
I had no long trips either with my longest being in the US for a week. The other time was again to the US for 3 days due to work.
It was hard remembering exact dates but I supplied the info pretty accurately (I checked when I got home) and we had little chit chat other than my favouite restaurant in the city (which is hard if you're a foodie so I talked about a few different ones based on cuisine type). I honestly felt I was undergoing a test on whether I actually lived in the city which I have for the past 6 years.
Regarding observations concluding the situation is "odd:"
No idea where this conclusion comes from. Processing has undergone extensive change in the last several years, and particularly so in the last year. It is
non-routine, but just the RQ makes it non-routine. Many, many thousands of applicants, however, go through the RQ process in almost any given year (RQ appears to be less frequent in the last year or so, but it appears this is due to the increased used of the less extensive and intrusive CIT 0520 request for particular documents or information). The vagaries of the processing are many. Who can assess what is "odd" or not when there are so many variables.
As
chikloo observed, no reason to worry too much, particularly if you know that all you have submitted to CIC (now
Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship) was complete and accurate.
The manner of the telephone call and interview seem to indicate an investigation of some sort. But again, as
chikloo observed, there really are too many reasons, meaning too many possibilities, to so much as guess speculatively.
That said, there is the passport question . . .
Questions about potential for other passports:
More pertinent observations include reference to potential passport issues, such as
cprak0's observation "I believe expired passports is a red flag. . . . ... might have an undisclosed passport... "
One of the things that raises the level of scrutiny and concern dramatically is, indeed, any suspicion the applicant may have had an undisclosed travel document. If this is combined with any indication of undisclosed travel (in the residency calculation), CIC has tended to approach the applicant with not just elevated scrutiny but elevated skepticism . . . leaning toward the
we-don't-believe-you end of assessing the facts.
Huge difference between mere questions or vague suspicions that an applicant
may have other, undisclosed travel documents, or
may have had additional, undisclosed trips abroad, and a scenario in which someone at CIC has identified a more or less specific reason to think there is an undisclosed travel document or undisclosed travel. If you know that you have completely and accurately provided documents and information, it is far more likely your scenario is the first of these, the far less troublesome scenario. You know your facts, your history, and what you submitted, so you should know whether there is a real problem or not.
If you know there is no real problem, relax. None of us can guess the timeline, but there should be no worries about the outcome, which should be favourable, and probably sooner now rather than later.
If, based on what you know, what you submitted, you know there is some aspect in your case, your history and submissions, that can be problematic, you can worry but nonetheless wait to see what happens next: oath or scheduled for a Citizenship Judge hearing, and go from there.
Or, if there is something to really worry about (and if your are honest and objective with yourself, you do know), take all your paperwork and get a good lawyer.
Incongruity in travel history:
As is typical, and indeed as is only appropriate in a venue like this (where it is probably not a great idea to share too many personal details), there are many, many, many additional details in your case which are relevant, which can influence how things go. This really is not a proper setting for disclosing enough detail to facilitate analysis of your case, even if someone here was qualified to do such an analysis and offer advice. I certainly am not qualified to offer personal advice. I would be highly skeptical of anyone here who claimed they are.
That said, some general observations may be helpful.
In the scenario you describe, for example, there appears to be a potential incongruity between your travel history and your explanation about the expired passport. This is dependent, to a degree, on the date you became a Permanent Resident and whether or not your credit for time present in Canada depended on counting time in Canada prior to the date you landed. In particular, a salient factor not reported is the date you became a Permanent Resident.
NO need to address or explain anything here regarding the following, as this is for illustration purposes:
I offer the following not for discussion, not to elicit any explanation, but to illustrate the sort of questions that can arise. For example, if you did not become a PR until 2011, just a bit more than two years prior to the date you applied for citizenship, that alone would explain a lot of this.
Since you say you arrived in Canada in 2001, however, and do not report the far more significant fact of when you became a PR, it at least appears likely you became a PR by 2009, at least four years prior to the date you applied for citizenship.
If so, the following, quoted from you, do not add up:
"I applied for citizenship in 2013 (arrived in Canada in 2001 as a student) with 1113 days physically present in Canada."
" . . . questions about one of my passports (I didn't renew since I've only travelled within Canada and found no need to do so)"
"The interviewer seemed rather interested in that expired and not renewed passport (as also all the residency type question) but as I explained to him I had no need to renew it . . . "
"I had no long trips either with my longest being in the US for a week. The other time was again to the US for 3 days due to work."
1460 days (relevant time period for calculation of residency; four year period 2009 to 2013) minus 1113 days (days declared present in Canada), indicates
357 days absent.
Then there is this, "only traveled within Canada . . ." versus "longest [trip] being in the US for a week . . . [and another] . . . to the US for 3 days . . . "
Seven plus three falls way, way, way short of 357 days absent. And there is the discrepancy between only "within Canada" and at least two trips outside Canada.
And since a PR card is not a Travel Document recognized by the U.S., it at least appears you must have been using a valid passport, which undermines the explanation given for not renewing the expired passport (as in it suggests that the reason was you had another passport you could use for travel).
Again, I am not suggesting you explain, let alone asking. This is not a proper forum for attempting to assess the details of an individual's personal case. I am, however, attempting to illuminate the sorts of questions which can arise if there are incongruities or vagaries in the information CIC is assessing, and highlighting some potential incongruities.
It still comes back to what you know. WHAT YOU KNOW!
You know your facts. You know what you submitted. You know if there were omissions. You know if there are inconsistencies.
You know whether there is reason to worry or not.
If there is no large or important omission or discrepancy, there is
NO REASON TO WORRY. Really, none.
If in what you have submitted there is a significant omission, a material discrepancy with the actual facts, you know or at least you should know, and if this is the case, again you can wait to see what happens next. It may go well. Or you can go to a lawyer.
