Did you apply with shortfall... there is little hope... Final Court Decision
- Thread starter arambi
- Start date
Little Hope or No hope???
Sorry am Not able to completely grasp the content... judgement is for Judicial review- what is that, if someone knows please explaian?
In my case of less days than 1095 under new rule - if the judge finally applies only the strict physical residence and and gives negative answer, I understand I can reapply.
In case if CJ says okay, and CIC challenges- will it go for Judicial review? I had seen one in forum got delayed even after approval as cic appealed and then judicial review... and again long wait! What should one expect?
Sorry am Not able to completely grasp the content... judgement is for Judicial review- what is that, if someone knows please explaian?
In my case of less days than 1095 under new rule - if the judge finally applies only the strict physical residence and and gives negative answer, I understand I can reapply.
In case if CJ says okay, and CIC challenges- will it go for Judicial review? I had seen one in forum got delayed even after approval as cic appealed and then judicial review... and again long wait! What should one expect?
No hope for shortfall under new rule.Exports said:Little Hope or No hope???
Sorry am Not able to completely grasp the content... judgement is for Judicial review- what is that, if someone knows please explaian?
In my case of less days than 1095 under new rule - if the judge finally applies only the strict physical residence and and gives negative answer, I understand I can reapply.
In case if CJ says okay, and CIC challenges- will it go for Judicial review? I had seen one in forum got delayed even after approval as cic appealed and then judicial review... and again long wait! What should one expect?
Application with 23 days shortfall was sent to CJ (under old rules).Exports said:Little Hope or No hope???
Sorry am Not able to completely grasp the content... judgement is for Judicial review- what is that, if someone knows please explaian?
In my case of less days than 1095 under new rule - if the judge finally applies only the strict physical residence and and gives negative answer, I understand I can reapply.
In case if CJ says okay, and CIC challenges- will it go for Judicial review? I had seen one in forum got delayed even after approval as cic appealed and then judicial review... and again long wait! What should one expect?
CJ applied Qualitative test (not quantitative test) and approved application.
Minister appealed CJ decision.
Appeal Court uphold CJ decision and dismissed Minister's appeal. This is FINAL.
any idea if this was recent after the new government or before at the time of old government?arambi said:Application with 23 days shortfall was sent to CJ (under old rules).
CJ applied Qualitative test (not quantitative test) and approved application.
Minister appealed CJ decision.
Appeal Court uphold CJ decision and dismissed Minister's appeal. This is FINAL.
arambi said:Did you apply with shortfall... there is little hope...
Read this Final Court Decision
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/127720/index.do?r=AAAAAQAvY2l0aXplbnNoaXAgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gcmVzaWRlbmNlIHF1ZXN0aW9ubmFpcmUB
The case you cite and link was NOT a shorfall case, and in fact the applicant declared 1326 days actual presence and CIC recalculated the applicant's declaration to be 1298 days actual presence.arambi said:Application with 23 days shortfall was sent to CJ (under old rules).
CJ applied Qualitative test (not quantitative test) and approved application.
Minister appealed CJ decision.
Appeal Court uphold CJ decision and dismissed Minister's appeal. This is FINAL.
The Citizenship Judge applied the actual physical presence test.
Qualitative test for residency played no part in the case.
This was a credibility and insufficient proof case.
Moreover, the decision is NOT final, but is "referred to a different decision-maker for re-determination."
This part is correct, as applicable to applications made after June 11, 2015.arambi said:No hope for shortfall under new rule.
Cited and linked case not relevant to this however.
Overall: Shortfall applications under old law may still be successful.
Overall, there have been a number of decisions in the last several months reinforcing the potential success of some shortall applications made under the requirements applicable before June 11, 2015. I have cited and linked some of these in other topics here.
Additionally there have been occasional anecdotal reports of being scheduled for the oath by some who applied with a shortfall.
There have been cases in which a CJ's approval has been set aside and the decision is apparently final, but this is an exception not the rule. Generally, if the Minister's appeal is granted, the matter is sent back for another decision-maker to re-determine the application. Example of case where the decision was final, citizenship denied despite a CJ's approval, is where there was a clear shortfall and the applicant's evidence did not establish a definite date by which the applicant had established actual residence in Canada sufficient to support a finding of three years resident in Canada after the date of establishing actual residence in Canada.
Again, for applications filed prior to June 11, 2015, there are still some shortfall applications which are resulting in the grant of citizenship. It is impossible to estimate what the chances are of being successful. A lot depends on the particular facts of the individual case, the extent of the shortfall, the extent to which the applicant documented when actual residence was established, and the extent to which it is clear the applicant's life was centralized in Canada for more than three years.
We have even seen one report of an applicant being scheduled for the oath despite a shortfall and relying on prelanding credit -- this is a scenario in which it appeared the odds of success were almost certainly none-existent. As I recall, however, the one case of this involved a minor mistake in the residency calculation resulting in a shortfall of just a few days.
This is not to suggest that any applicant with a significant shortfall, who applied under the old law, has good odds. We really do not know the odds. For example, any with a significant shortfall probably have very poor odds.
Dpenabill,
My bad, I copy-pasted the wrong case.
This is the case I meant to post
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/127738/index.do?r=AAAAAQAvY2l0aXplbnNoaXAgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gcmVzaWRlbmNlIHF1ZXN0aW9ubmFpcmUB
Date: 20160122
Docket: T-619-15
Citation: 2016 FC 67
Ottawa, Ontario, January 22, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
and
RYEOME LEE
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] This is an application for judicial review, brought by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of the decision of a Citizenship Judge [the Judge] dated March 23, 2015 wherein it was held that the Respondent met the residency requirements for Canadian citizenship as set out in the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c-29 [Act].
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed.
My bad, I copy-pasted the wrong case.
This is the case I meant to post
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/127738/index.do?r=AAAAAQAvY2l0aXplbnNoaXAgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gcmVzaWRlbmNlIHF1ZXN0aW9ubmFpcmUB
Date: 20160122
Docket: T-619-15
Citation: 2016 FC 67
Ottawa, Ontario, January 22, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
and
RYEOME LEE
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] This is an application for judicial review, brought by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of the decision of a Citizenship Judge [the Judge] dated March 23, 2015 wherein it was held that the Respondent met the residency requirements for Canadian citizenship as set out in the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c-29 [Act].
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed.
@dpenabill thanks for the summary of the case... it becomes more clear!dpenabill said:We have even seen one report of an applicant being scheduled for the oath despite a shortfall and relying on prelanding credit -- this is a scenario in which it appeared the odds of success were almost certainly none-existent. As I recall, however, the one case of this involved a minor mistake in the residency calculation resulting in a shortfall of just a few days.
This is not to suggest that any applicant with a significant shortfall, who applied under the old law, has good odds. We really do not know the odds. For example, any with a significant shortfall probably have very poor odds.
Should the title of this thread include the phrase "there is a little hope," as in there is SOME hope, instead of "there is little hope," as in there is ALMOST NO hope? The two have vastly different meanings. The court rejected CIC's appeal n'est ce pas? :-\
You are correct. There is SOME hope is the right formulation here.links18 said:Should the title of this thread include the phrase "there is a little hope," as in there is SOME hope, instead of "there is little hope," as in there is ALMOST NO hope? The two have vastly different meanings. The court rejected CIC's appeal n'est ce pas? :-\
Oui, the Court rejected CIC appeal.
Re: Did you apply with shortfall... there is SOME hope... Final Court Decision
links18 said:Should the title of this thread include the phrase "there is a little hope," as in there is SOME hope, instead of "there is little hope," as in there is ALMOST NO hope? The two have vastly different meanings. The court rejected CIC's appeal n'est ce pas? :-\
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/127758/index.do?r=AAAAAQAvY2l0aXplbnNoaXAgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gcmVzaWRlbmNlIHF1ZXN0aW9ubmFpcmUB
Federal Court Decisions
Case name: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Liao
Court (s) Database: Federal Court Decisions
Date: 2016-01-22
Neutral citation: 2016 FC 65
File numbers: T-813-15
Date: 20160122
Docket: T-813-15
Citation: 2016 FC 65
Ottawa, Ontario, January 22, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
and
TSAI CHUAN LIAO
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] This is an application for judicial review, brought by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of the decision of a Citizenship Judge [the Judge] dated April 20, 2015 wherein it was held that the Respondent met the residency requirements for Canadian citizenship as set out in the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c-29 [Act].
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed.
Federal Court Decisions
Case name: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Liao
Court (s) Database: Federal Court Decisions
Date: 2016-01-22
Neutral citation: 2016 FC 65
File numbers: T-813-15
Date: 20160122
Docket: T-813-15
Citation: 2016 FC 65
Ottawa, Ontario, January 22, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
and
TSAI CHUAN LIAO
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] This is an application for judicial review, brought by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of the decision of a Citizenship Judge [the Judge] dated April 20, 2015 wherein it was held that the Respondent met the residency requirements for Canadian citizenship as set out in the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c-29 [Act].
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed.
BASED ON THE LINKS PROVIDED,
1. Does it mean all cases APPROVED BY CJ IN RESIDENCE TYPE HEARING ARE challenged by CIC AGAIN ? I read all the cases and understand that they were appealed by the APPLICANT ( CIC? ) to be dismissed by the judge, or for 2nd CJ HEARING?
2. In my case, if the CJ GRANTS ACCEPTANCE, does it mean that 100% I SHOULD EXPECT APPEAL BY THE CIC? This would result in LONG WAIT AGAIN AND JEOPARDISING THE SITUATION.
I WAS THINKING TO WAIT FOR CJ HEARING, TAKE A CHANCE TO SEE THE OUTCOME AND THEN THEN DECIDE IF APPROVED OK, IF NOT OKAY THEN REAPPLY AGAIN!
GOING BY THE ABOVE TWO FACTS, I SEE MYSELF AGAIN CONFUSED TAKING WRONG PATHS AGAIN... IN BOTH SITUATION IT SEEMS LOSING..
PLEASE ADVICE.
@SCYLLA @DPENABILL REQUESTING YOUR INPUT!
1. Does it mean all cases APPROVED BY CJ IN RESIDENCE TYPE HEARING ARE challenged by CIC AGAIN ? I read all the cases and understand that they were appealed by the APPLICANT ( CIC? ) to be dismissed by the judge, or for 2nd CJ HEARING?
2. In my case, if the CJ GRANTS ACCEPTANCE, does it mean that 100% I SHOULD EXPECT APPEAL BY THE CIC? This would result in LONG WAIT AGAIN AND JEOPARDISING THE SITUATION.
I WAS THINKING TO WAIT FOR CJ HEARING, TAKE A CHANCE TO SEE THE OUTCOME AND THEN THEN DECIDE IF APPROVED OK, IF NOT OKAY THEN REAPPLY AGAIN!
GOING BY THE ABOVE TWO FACTS, I SEE MYSELF AGAIN CONFUSED TAKING WRONG PATHS AGAIN... IN BOTH SITUATION IT SEEMS LOSING..
PLEASE ADVICE.
@SCYLLA @DPENABILL REQUESTING YOUR INPUT!
Ya this is what I was thinking about the liberal factor. Now sure if it wud have any impact as didn't do any misdeclaration.links18 said:We don't have a ton of evidence yet on what the culture at CIC will be under the new government. In theory, they should be much more (L) iberal on these things, but we just don't know yet.