Effective date of Bill C24

[bambino]

Update on Rocco Galati's petition: Justice Rennie has declared his decision and replied to both the parties on Jan 23rd. Don't have the details and nothing is in the news so far.

How did you learn that? There is no decision posted anywhere yet. Which is not to say it hasn't been sent to the parties yet.

 

[ronaldoyaronaldo]

How did you learn that? There is no decision posted anywhere yet. Which is not to say it hasn't been sent to the parties yet.

I have been allover the news since that post and found no definitive decision yet

 

[cooldoc80]

interesting thread , keep it up

 

[dpenabill]

Reminder: the Galati challenge has nothing to do with Bill C-24 amendments to section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act, and thus nothing at all to do with any of the new residency requirements, not the 4/6 rule, not the "intent to reside" clause (note that the new 4/6 rule and "intent to reside" clause are part of the same provision in Bill C-24, that is, section 3 in Bill C-24).

Galati's challenge is not about the validity of Bill C-24 itself, so even if Galati completely wins, that will have no impact on the implementation or validity of changes to the residency requirement.

The Galati challenge (as I understand it) is solely about whether Parliament has the authority to pass a law which gives the government authority to revoke the citizenship of a dual citizen based on acts committed while a citizen. A very narrow challenge to a specific provision in Bill C-24, based on (as Galati argues) the lack of power in Parliament to adopt that specific provision. No implications at all relative to validity or interpretation of any other provision in Bill C-24.

The issue Justice Rennie has had under advisement (which is reportedly decided according to post above) is only whether or not to dismiss the Galati action. If the government's motion is granted, by Justice Rennie, the challenge is at an end -- unless Galati has an avenue to obtain further review in a higher court -- or until the time that there is an actual case involving the revocation of citizenship for a dual citizen and based on acts committed while a citizen.

If Justice Rennie denies the government's motion to dismiss the claim, the matter will proceed to be decided on its merits.

In any event, again, there is no chance this will affect the validity, implementation, or interpretation of any other provision in Bill C-24, other than the specific provision prescribing the revocation of citizenship for persons with dual citizenship.

 

[nadeem55]

If they refer me to CJ or CIC officer and asking why I can't wait 17 more days to apply, my answer would be clear and strong that if I apply after 17 days, I've to wait 2 more years which is obviously a significant waiting period.
If I'll be granting citizenship, I would like to apply for job at Govt. sector (where citizenship is usually required) and here are the links... where my skills are in high demand.
Secondly, as I'm contributed to Canadian society from long ago (taxes, doing work) now I wanted to be the part of actual Canadian voice by voting (again where citizenship is required), which certainly makes a difference.

These are my views, I'm not sure if these are good points or path to denied my application?

Any suggestions guys?

These are all self fabricated questions dude! Do you have prove of someone bn asked these questions? If at all, in this scenario if you're only short of 17days just cause you're away on vacation after living in Canada for 4 or 5plus years (working, studying and PR days) coupled with the strong ties listed, I think you have more than enough answers to the questions if asked.

 

[Dave01]

If they refer me to CJ or CIC officer and asking why I can't wait 17 more days to apply, my answer would be clear and strong that if I apply after 17 days, I've to wait 2 more years which is obviously a significant waiting period.
If I'll be granting citizenship, I would like to apply for job at Govt. sector (where citizenship is usually required) and here are the links... where my skills are in high demand.
Secondly, as I'm contributed to Canadian society from long ago (taxes, doing work) now I wanted to be the part of actual Canadian voice by voting (again where citizenship is required), which certainly makes a difference.

These are my views, I'm not sure if these are good points or path to denied my application?

Any suggestions guys?

Makes sense to me Nadeem55!

 

[Dave01]

I used to work as institutional day trader for 5 years, while I was working I've learned the business in details. After my contract was about to expire I took the decision to start trading for myself with my own capital.

Today because of the technology boom it is possible to trade the markets from your bedroom, worldwide. The markets are open 24h a day so the trading session might be whenever you want.

This is my 7th year since I've started to trade for myself ... no need to wake up in the morning and rushing not to be late for work, no need to stay everyday in the traffic, no long working shifts.

Instead you have your own time and freedom to do that from different parts of the world.
At the same time you can extend your vacations until you want, because meanwhile you can still make money from your hotel room.

But you have to know how the market works , otherwise you will lose money.
You need accurate fundamental and technical analysis , proper risk management, proper money management and discipline.

I figured could be this also and you're very right, one needs to understand it properly to make money. I did try this in 2009 after few demo practises and I lost chunk of real $$$.. I need to learn if peeps are really making money. Thanks for sharing MUFC

 

[screech339]

If they refer me to CJ or CIC officer and asking why I can't wait 17 more days to apply, my answer would be clear and strong that if I apply after 17 days, I've to wait 2 more years which is obviously a significant waiting period.
If I'll be granting citizenship, I would like to apply for job at Govt. sector (where citizenship is usually required) and here are the links... where my skills are in high demand.
Secondly, as I'm contributed to Canadian society from long ago (taxes, doing work) now I wanted to be the part of actual Canadian voice by voting (again where citizenship is required), which certainly makes a difference.

These are my views, I'm not sure if these are good points or path to denied my application?

Any suggestions guys?

To say that you want to beat the 4/6 year rule in order to qualify under 3/4 instead of 4/6 rule doesn't seem that convincing to me and probably not to the judge/CIC officer, in my opinion. To me you are telling and asking the judge to make an exception due to the fact that you would have to wait additional 2 years under the new system if they cancelled the application due to not having enough physical presence by 17 days short.

I honestly think you would have a better chance that your application to continue on had you missed or short by 2-3 days in physical presence requirement. It seems that 17 days is too large a gap to convince judge or cic officer.

 

[bambino]

nadeem55 will absolutely be following the rules. The rules, as they are now, allow people to apply with 1095 basic residence. The only caveat is that it will take longer to process the application (RQ, etc.), but the CIC website itself claims that if you are short on physical presence, "the citizenship judge will evaluate the nature of your residence in Canada", something that many CJs have simply refused to do, applying the strict physical presence test only.

I hope that this question gets adjudicated in the courts, especially when the likelihood is that many thousands of people like nadeem55 will be applying before they have enough days of physical presence.

 

[screech339]

nadeem55 will absolutely be following the rules. The rules, as they are now, allow people to apply with 1095 basic residence. The only caveat is that it will take longer to process the application (RQ, etc.), but the CIC website itself claims that if you are short on physical presence, "the citizenship judge will evaluate the nature of your residence in Canada", something that many CJs have simply refused to do, applying the strict physical presence test only.

I hope that this question gets adjudicated in the courts, especially when the likelihood is that many thousands of people like nadeem55 will be applying before they have enough days of physical presence.

I ran a scenario on the residence calculator whereby I was absence out of Canada for 5 months for each year for the last 3 years. It says I maintained basic residence since I stayed in Canada 6 months or more but I was out of Canada for 260 days. It says I can go see a citizenship judge since I maintained basic residence. According to you, a CJ will simply refused to deny me citizenship path because they don't want to apply the strict physical presence test only. I have a house and spouse was working to support my 5 months outside Canada for 3 years. Are you saying I can get citizenship based on this scenario on basic residency rule only?

 

[nadeem55]

Only the CJ would decide, if you're able to convince him with the valid reason why they consider your application for further processing, I know this would trigger RQ.
On the other hand, if we take your scenario where you just maintain the PR status would obviously never convince the CJ, I guess if there's a few day gap and have a valid reason they might consider the application.

We need to follow with the applicants who applied with this situations and what was the result.

I ran a scenario on the residence calculator whereby I was absence out of Canada for 5 months for each year for the last 3 years. It says I maintained basic residence since I stayed in Canada 6 months or more but I was out of Canada for 260 days. It says I can go see a citizenship judge since I maintained basic residence. According to you, a CJ will simply refused to deny me citizenship path because they don't want to apply the strict physical presence test only. I have a house and spouse was working to support my 5 months outside Canada for 3 years. Are you saying I can get citizenship based on this scenario on basic residency rule only?

 

[screech339]

Only the CJ would decide, if you're able to convince him with the valid reason why they consider your application for further processing, I know this would trigger RQ.
On the other hand, if we take your scenario where you just maintain the PR status would obviously never convince the CJ, I guess if there's a few day gap and have a valid reason they might consider the application.

We need to follow with the applicants who applied with this situations and what was the result.

Yes I agree that it is up to the CJ / CIC agent to decide if it merits moving on with citizenship application. But my point was made to refute your claim that a judge will never deny citizenship without physical presence rule requirement.

In essence, I think the larger the gap in physical presence requirement is, the harder it is to move your application along or higher chance of being denied and having to resubmit new application.

Just because the website says I can go see a citizenship judge doesn't mean I am guarantee a path to citizenship.

 

[ronaldoyaronaldo]

How long do RQ's usually take to process? Assuming there is no backlog and CIC looks into them promptly?

 

[screech339]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a large citizenship applications being submitted with just basic residence but short of the physical 1095 days before the new 4/6 year rule kick in, whether it is a couple of days or a couple of weeks short, all to beat the 4/6 cutoff date.

 

[dpenabill]

Regarding the anticipated rush of applications based on meeting basic residence requirement

The anticipated rush of applications based on meeting the basic residence requirement without meeting the strict actual physical presence test, is among probable reasons for the government to give less, not more notice of when the revised version of section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act will come into force. This government tends to give minimal notice anyway, but this particular aspect illustrates that for many thousands of PRs, the timing of making their application will have a direct impact in whether they have to wait a year, up to two years, more before becoming eligible.

While the argument posed by nadeem bears positive weight in terms of why the CJ should consider making an exception (that is, it is a positive factor favouring the applicant deserving to be granted citizenship), under the current requirements, it does not have much if any weight regarding the critical element of establishing a centralized life in Canada.

Frankly, even before the trend for CIC and CJs to more consistently and strictly apply the actual physical presence test, my impression is that applicants relying on credit for time present in Canada before landing had difficulty (if not near impossibility for any significant shortfall) of being approved based on a centralized life in Canada test, rather than the physical presence (1095+ days) test.

After all, it is hard to prove having centralized one's life in a place during a period of time the individual was in that place with only temporary status. And prior to landing, that is the nature of an individual's status: it was temporary.

Parliament has now spoken (by adopting Bill C-24) that its preference is (1) not to give credit for time in Canada with temporary status, and (2) to require actual physical presence. Even though these are not technically applicable to anyone whose application is received at CIC the day before the new provisions come into force, the predominant test being applied these days is the actual physical presence test. Thus, it is apparent that the odds now are very high against an applicant relying on pre-landing credit plus having a shortfall and thus also relying on a CJ to, in effect, waive applying the actual physical presence test.

That does not necessarily mean it is not worth trying. That is a personal decision. That depends on just how close to the 1095 days of actual presence threshold the PR comes. That depends on how well established the PR's life in Canada is. And it depends on how much longer the PR would have to wait before becoming eligible under the 4/6 rule. Way, way too many variables to attempt outlining probable scenarios, but of course it will be worth comparing how long one has to wait to be eligible under the new provision versus how much longer processing is likely to take (and at the risk of a negative outcome) applying with a shortfall case under the current provision. This will a very individual calculation.

The problem, for those trying to decide if or when to apply, is that it is a bit of a cat-and-mouse scenario leading up to the coming into force of the 4/6 rule: how much notice will there be and, most significantly, what the actual coming into force date will be. This is why so many are following every hint of news about the prospective date: it will make a big difference to many, many thousands of PRs (could easily affect well over a hundred thousand, perhaps as many as a quarter million).

Reminder: for those who have a shortfall due to extensive absences since landing, but landed significantly over three years ago (and particularly those who landed more than four years ago), remember that once the new provision takes effect, the period of time considered expands to six years and the required ratio of time in Canada to outside Canada is more lenient (2/3 as opposed to current 3/4). For those who have had extensive absences due to work abroad (long haul truckers with routes in the U.S. for example; some off-shore oil rig workers, among other examples), or due to a particular contingency (having to spend several months attending to an ill parent in the home country for example), and as a result have spent more than one-fourth of their time abroad in the last four years, it will be worth re-calculating actual presence under the new provision . . . in short, as of the day the new provision takes effect, there will be a large number of PRs in Canada who have failed to meet the 3 years in 4 presence requirement who will suddenly be qualified based on presence for 1460 days (4 years total) in the last six years.