David_Parker said:
I agree with that part. There is no telling how much this process can keep changing along the years. For better or worse.
Effective date of Bill C24
- Thread starter SherifEF
- Start date
I agree with that part. There is no telling how much this process can keep changing along the years. For better or worse.
CanadianCountry
Hero Member
- Jan 26, 2011
- 567
- 23
- Category........
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 02-02-2010
- Doc's Request.
- 16-03-2010
- AOR Received.
- 24-07-2010
- File Transfer...
- 24-03-2010
- Med's Request
- Yes
- Med's Done....
- Yes
- Passport Req..
- Yes
- VISA ISSUED...
- Yes
- LANDED..........
- Yes
How does end of July looks for residency requirement? 3/5 or 4/6??
David_Parker said:What about July 6,2015 applicant? Any chance?????
My PR was delayed extra 1 year due to closer of Buffalo visa office. I will be effected double without any reason.
Also it seems to be playing lottery, like u missed jackpot with just 1 number. Not as a system, where it's confirmed, you complete the eligibility, you will get it.
I am also afraid, in July, 2017, they may change the rules.
I left everything on God
CanadianCountry said:
I hope everyone understand the simple english....
THERE IS NO NEWS MEANS THERE IS NO NEWS... NO USE FOR PREDICTIONS.... WHO KNOWS WHETHER THEY IMPLEMENT THAT RULE OR NOT....... SO... CHILL....
Observation about Privy Council database and Orders by the Governor in Council:
There remains a strong possibility that the Order, now existing but as yet unseen by us, will be accessible at the Privy Council web site before it is published in the Gazette.
The Privy Council database shows Orders at least somewhat prior to their publication dates . . . I just did not think to follow this in real time, so by the time I noticed this, the respective Orders have all published in today's Regular Edition of Part II in the Gazette . . . not sure how long they were accessible before today.
Logic suggests that since it is the Privy Council which prepares the Governor in Council Order, and submits it for publication, that the Privy Council has the Order before it is published in the Gazette, and thus it should show up there first.
But logic does not control actual practice in governmental bureaucracies. Prescribed policies and practices override logic.
My thinking is that this last Order, which again seems at least somewhat likely to also fix the date for the 4/6 rule, will show up at the Privy Council site first, then the Gazette, but maybe not until just before it shows up in the Gazette . . . or perhaps CIC will publicize the changeover sooner rather than after.
All we can do is wait and see.
Certainly not a "3/5" requirement. Possibly still 3/4, but more likely the new 4/6.
Regarding claims about the impact of the intent requirement:
I. Claim that the intent requirement "empowers government officials to speculate on an applicant's future intentions, and then potentially deny them citizenship on the basis of that conjecture."
This is somewhat true in that the intent requirement opens the door a lot wider in terms of the range of factors which can be considered in CIC's evaluation of the applicant, and potentially CIC's decision-making could hinge on an assessment of the applicant's intentions. But this is NOT about the applicant's future intentions, so there is no empowering CIC to speculate on the applicant's future intentions . . . what is relevant is the applicant's present intention . . . present intention right up to the time of taking the oath of course.
Moreover, neither speculation nor conjecture are allowed. Reasonable inferences are allowed and standard operating procedure. Any inferences made must be derived from, that is based on, credible facts of record.
But sure, for applicants issued RQ, the impact of the intent requirement evokes a huge WOW reaction: the scope of RQ will undoubtedly be profoundly expanded and, moreover, the range of what becomes a material fact expands dramatically. Those given RQ in the future, after the new requirements come into effect, might as well, so to say, get naked because CIC is likely to demand a look at absolutely everything.
II. Claim that the intent requirement "holds out the implicit threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do), or forms a relationship with someone abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to strip him/her of citizenship for misrepresenting their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship."
This is simply NOT true. The language of the provision itself does not support this interpretation.
And any attempt to apply an interpretation which would allow this sort of action against an individual's citizenship based on no more than acts after becoming a citizen would be soundly rejected by the Courts . . . no doubt at all about this.
While there are situations in which acts or events after the fact may be relevant to determining a person's intent on a previous occasion, those are few and limited, and there is no reasonable or rational theory of evidence which would allow an inference of misrepresentation based merely on a later act like leaving Canada to take a job abroad. The criticisms of the intent requirement based on this red herring are rooted in what could conceiveably be argued. That's not how laws work. (Frankly, that's more how trolls work.)
I recognize that early on even the comments submitted by the Canadian Bar Association advanced a version of this criticism . . . as if whoever advanced this, for the Bar, had not even read the provision itself or was at all familiar with rules of evidence or basic principles of fair procedures in decision-making. So far as I have seen, only one lawyer has put her name on this specious argument in the last ten months or so, although last September CARL published a Continuing Legal Education paper by a student which also raised this issue (neither offered any authority or analysis supporting this proposition, which is probably because there is none).
But sure, anyone who has already agreed to take a job abroad, who takes the oath, and then goes abroad to take that job . . . there is no need to make inferences about that individual's intentions up to the time of taking the oath, the individual expressed an intention to not continue to reside in Canada by accepting the job offer abroad (before proceeding to the oath), in effect admitting to not meeting the requirements for citizenship, and of course if this individual conceals this from CIC, and proceeds to take the oath notwithstanding having already accepted a job abroad, DUH!, that is indeed misrepresentation, a crime, punishable by imprisonment, and by revocation of citizenship. No degree in engineering necessary to figure out the angles in this.
And there are scores and scores of potential examples. Anyone issued RQ, for example, who fails to disclose ownership of property or a business abroad (assuming the new RQ attendant the revised requirements will mandate disclosure of these), is commiting a crime and if caught faces jail time and revocation of citizenship . . . noting that there is no statute of limitations on a proceeding to revoke citizenship so that could happen many years later when the formerly happy wife has gone out the door and is in a vindictive frame of mind (or a former business associate with whom things have gone sour), so long as she can point to the paperwork which will document real facts showing there were material misrepresentations of fact made.
Working abroad while the application is pending, and not disclosing this to CIC . . . better to be caught before you take the oath, when all that is likely to happen then is the application is rejected . . . get away with at first, take the oath, and then a disgruntled colleague turns you in later . . . Boom, put your hands behind your back and be prepared to go to jail . . . or at least lose the status obtained fraudulently.
But all that is what should be expected for engaging in criminal activity. Best case scenario is always looking over your shoulder.
In contrast, absolutely no, moving abroad years after becoming a citizen will not support revocation of citizenship. Not at all.
Claim III: ". . . Then its not good for some citizen's who want to get the citizens[ship] and passports and leave . . . "
This is true. That's the idea. That's what this government wants from this legislation, one of the things it wants.
There remains a strong possibility that the Order, now existing but as yet unseen by us, will be accessible at the Privy Council web site before it is published in the Gazette.
The Privy Council database shows Orders at least somewhat prior to their publication dates . . . I just did not think to follow this in real time, so by the time I noticed this, the respective Orders have all published in today's Regular Edition of Part II in the Gazette . . . not sure how long they were accessible before today.
Logic suggests that since it is the Privy Council which prepares the Governor in Council Order, and submits it for publication, that the Privy Council has the Order before it is published in the Gazette, and thus it should show up there first.
But logic does not control actual practice in governmental bureaucracies. Prescribed policies and practices override logic.
My thinking is that this last Order, which again seems at least somewhat likely to also fix the date for the 4/6 rule, will show up at the Privy Council site first, then the Gazette, but maybe not until just before it shows up in the Gazette . . . or perhaps CIC will publicize the changeover sooner rather than after.
All we can do is wait and see.
CanadianCountry said:
Certainly not a "3/5" requirement. Possibly still 3/4, but more likely the new 4/6.
vathan said:
Regarding claims about the impact of the intent requirement:
I. Claim that the intent requirement "empowers government officials to speculate on an applicant's future intentions, and then potentially deny them citizenship on the basis of that conjecture."
This is somewhat true in that the intent requirement opens the door a lot wider in terms of the range of factors which can be considered in CIC's evaluation of the applicant, and potentially CIC's decision-making could hinge on an assessment of the applicant's intentions. But this is NOT about the applicant's future intentions, so there is no empowering CIC to speculate on the applicant's future intentions . . . what is relevant is the applicant's present intention . . . present intention right up to the time of taking the oath of course.
Moreover, neither speculation nor conjecture are allowed. Reasonable inferences are allowed and standard operating procedure. Any inferences made must be derived from, that is based on, credible facts of record.
But sure, for applicants issued RQ, the impact of the intent requirement evokes a huge WOW reaction: the scope of RQ will undoubtedly be profoundly expanded and, moreover, the range of what becomes a material fact expands dramatically. Those given RQ in the future, after the new requirements come into effect, might as well, so to say, get naked because CIC is likely to demand a look at absolutely everything.
II. Claim that the intent requirement "holds out the implicit threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do), or forms a relationship with someone abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to strip him/her of citizenship for misrepresenting their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship."
This is simply NOT true. The language of the provision itself does not support this interpretation.
And any attempt to apply an interpretation which would allow this sort of action against an individual's citizenship based on no more than acts after becoming a citizen would be soundly rejected by the Courts . . . no doubt at all about this.
While there are situations in which acts or events after the fact may be relevant to determining a person's intent on a previous occasion, those are few and limited, and there is no reasonable or rational theory of evidence which would allow an inference of misrepresentation based merely on a later act like leaving Canada to take a job abroad. The criticisms of the intent requirement based on this red herring are rooted in what could conceiveably be argued. That's not how laws work. (Frankly, that's more how trolls work.)
I recognize that early on even the comments submitted by the Canadian Bar Association advanced a version of this criticism . . . as if whoever advanced this, for the Bar, had not even read the provision itself or was at all familiar with rules of evidence or basic principles of fair procedures in decision-making. So far as I have seen, only one lawyer has put her name on this specious argument in the last ten months or so, although last September CARL published a Continuing Legal Education paper by a student which also raised this issue (neither offered any authority or analysis supporting this proposition, which is probably because there is none).
But sure, anyone who has already agreed to take a job abroad, who takes the oath, and then goes abroad to take that job . . . there is no need to make inferences about that individual's intentions up to the time of taking the oath, the individual expressed an intention to not continue to reside in Canada by accepting the job offer abroad (before proceeding to the oath), in effect admitting to not meeting the requirements for citizenship, and of course if this individual conceals this from CIC, and proceeds to take the oath notwithstanding having already accepted a job abroad, DUH!, that is indeed misrepresentation, a crime, punishable by imprisonment, and by revocation of citizenship. No degree in engineering necessary to figure out the angles in this.
And there are scores and scores of potential examples. Anyone issued RQ, for example, who fails to disclose ownership of property or a business abroad (assuming the new RQ attendant the revised requirements will mandate disclosure of these), is commiting a crime and if caught faces jail time and revocation of citizenship . . . noting that there is no statute of limitations on a proceeding to revoke citizenship so that could happen many years later when the formerly happy wife has gone out the door and is in a vindictive frame of mind (or a former business associate with whom things have gone sour), so long as she can point to the paperwork which will document real facts showing there were material misrepresentations of fact made.
Working abroad while the application is pending, and not disclosing this to CIC . . . better to be caught before you take the oath, when all that is likely to happen then is the application is rejected . . . get away with at first, take the oath, and then a disgruntled colleague turns you in later . . . Boom, put your hands behind your back and be prepared to go to jail . . . or at least lose the status obtained fraudulently.
But all that is what should be expected for engaging in criminal activity. Best case scenario is always looking over your shoulder.
In contrast, absolutely no, moving abroad years after becoming a citizen will not support revocation of citizenship. Not at all.
Claim III: ". . . Then its not good for some citizen's who want to get the citizens[ship] and passports and leave . . . "
This is true. That's the idea. That's what this government wants from this legislation, one of the things it wants.
Politren said:
Be outside the CIC office by June 28th then? June 29th is a Monday anyway, wherever the citizenship processing office is (Sydney, NS I think - if you think spending the dollars is justified to save 1 more year). Or postdate it, and send by registered post on the Friday 26 June, they'll receive it on Tuesday latest?
There is a thing known as "postal rule" in English common law, I don't know if it applies in Canada. But similarly in Britain, when they changed the rules for the Tier 1 program, those who had already posted the application by Royal Mail before the cutoff date were still eligible, whenever the envelopes reached.
sidestep4u
Hero Member
- Sep 27, 2010
- 894
- 30
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- surrey bc
- NOC Code......
- citizenship
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- AOR Received.
- dec 19 2016
- Interview........
- mar 9 2017
Hi
Most probably I will travel to Sydney, but I would not postdate it.
Yesterday the Supervisor mentioned something also important at least for me. He said that we can't consider the actual implementation of the pending provisions as a delay, because there were never any definitive date mentioned in a first place officially.
So this made me think, aren't we the people making up the hot spot dates which have nothing to do with the reality based only on speculations?
Most probably I will travel to Sydney, but I would not postdate it.
Yesterday the Supervisor mentioned something also important at least for me. He said that we can't consider the actual implementation of the pending provisions as a delay, because there were never any definitive date mentioned in a first place officially.
So this made me think, aren't we the people making up the hot spot dates which have nothing to do with the reality based only on speculations?
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 7,887
- 553
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
jazibkg said:
The postal rule does not apply here in Canada. The only thing that matters is the day CIC receives your application, regardless of when the application was mailed. So unless CIC announces any postal rule for those at the cusp of deadline, the day application is received will follow the citizenship rules at time of day.
Politren said:
I think you are more or less correct. The mid-june hotspot is a guess. A educated guess, but still a guess. It's basically a prediction based on the previous behavior for those matters. But what the heck do we know? As far as I know the law could be enforced only in January 2016... or tomorrow.
Hi Screech339, I am eligible to apply on June 19, 2015 and planning to sign and send the application from Calgary on June 20. Base on what you stated here, if I sign it June 20 and mail it on June 18 so that, it reaches Sydney June 20 then do you think that they pass it? and also please June 20 will be Saturday, do you think that there will be anybody from CIC who will receive parcels during weekends? Thanksscreech339 said:
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 7,887
- 553
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
Abkssh said:
The problem is that you can't post date your application. You can't sign it june 20 and mail it June 18. For one thing, that's fraud. If I am not mistaken, the online residence calculator won't match up as it would list June 18th when you printed it up and submit with your application.
If they were to allow that, I could have the package ready, sign posted dated a week later and have it arranged with courier to have it delivered on a specific day. I can then head out of Canada the next day. When the package arrived at CIC a week later. The application says I was in Canada up to time CIC received application when in fact I wasn't since I am including time in Canada towards 1095 days. Do you see the flaw in sending a post dated application?
CIC offices are closed on weekends so they won't be accepting any applications on june 20 until June 22.
Similar threads
