I had my interview this week in Montreal. The officer was very professional and nice. She said that due to my extensive travels, she will ask for more documents. During the interview she asked if I had receipts for my Airbnb stays (they amounted for about 2 months) at some point when I was switching addresses. I gave them to her and she said she will ask for more docs once she looks at the Airbnb confirmations. Any comments from someone with similar experience on how long this could take before she gets back to me to ask for more docs?
Had interview, officer said she will ask for more docs. How long before I hear from her?
- Thread starter gino007
- Start date
I did not have a similar experience. But I have been following presence-questions issues fairly closely for quite a long time, in anecdotal reports in forums like this, and in officially reported actual cases (Federal Court decisions).
How this goes from here very much depends on what questions or concerns the interviewer has, or the responsible Citizenship Officer has (it is possible your interviewer was the Citizenship Officer responsible for making the decision on your application, but not necessarily and as far as I can discern not usually). AND, of course, the particular facts and circumstances of your case. Accuracy of your declared travel history looming largest. But many other factors in play as well, including for example the processing agent's assessment of evidence like the receipts you provided for the Airbnb stays.
The range of possibilities is wide.
After reviewing what you have already provided, and perhaps after reviewing the CBSA travel history, it is possible the next thing that happens is you get a Notice to attend an oath ceremony. That could happen very soon, in a couple or four months, or in six months or more. Timeline varies widely.
If, however, the processing agent (and/or responsible Citizenship Officer) does indeed make a request for more documents from you, this too can range widely. The request should come within one to three or four months. Among the possible requests, are the following:
-- request for Finger Prints, or
-- correspondence specifically asking for this or that particular document(s); this would be in letter form, or
-- correspondence including a CIT 0520 form; this is oft time referred to as RQ-lite, and similarly is a request for this or that particular documents, or
-- correspondence including CIT 0171 form; this is a Residency Questionnaire, generally referred to as "RQ," and sometimes referred to as "full-blown RQ;" it is a comprehensive form requiring the applicant to provide a lot of detailed information, much of which was already submitted in the application (like address, work, and travel history), but also asking for a lot of additional information (such as ownership of property or business interests, including property and businesses abroad) and it specifically asks for extensive documentation related to the information and indications of residency or presence in particular (in addition to asking for more documentation to prove residence in dwellings listed in address history and to prove employment history, it asks for medical history for example), or
-- correspondence related to and including CIT 0205, which is labeled "Physical Presence Questionnaire - Quality Assurance Exercise" (PPQ - QAE); this is similar to the full blown RQ but asks for more documents than the RQ, including exit/entry records from other countries, Finger Prints, a Canadian citizen reference, and consent to access U.S. travel history records
-- correspondence specifically asking for this or that particular document(s); this would be in letter form, or
-- correspondence including a CIT 0520 form; this is oft time referred to as RQ-lite, and similarly is a request for this or that particular documents, or
-- correspondence including CIT 0171 form; this is a Residency Questionnaire, generally referred to as "RQ," and sometimes referred to as "full-blown RQ;" it is a comprehensive form requiring the applicant to provide a lot of detailed information, much of which was already submitted in the application (like address, work, and travel history), but also asking for a lot of additional information (such as ownership of property or business interests, including property and businesses abroad) and it specifically asks for extensive documentation related to the information and indications of residency or presence in particular (in addition to asking for more documentation to prove residence in dwellings listed in address history and to prove employment history, it asks for medical history for example), or
-- correspondence related to and including CIT 0205, which is labeled "Physical Presence Questionnaire - Quality Assurance Exercise" (PPQ - QAE); this is similar to the full blown RQ but asks for more documents than the RQ, including exit/entry records from other countries, Finger Prints, a Canadian citizen reference, and consent to access U.S. travel history records
If you only receive a request for FPs, this should not delay the process much at all so long as you promptly and properly provide your FPs.
If you receive any of the other requests, the timeline can vary greatly and there is minimal information available about how long processing is currently taking in these cases, so it is impossible to guess how long it would take. At least an extra month beyond the time it takes for IRCC to make the request and the applicant to submit a response, but it could be ONE month or A YEAR longer.
The more extensive and intrusive requests for documents, ranging from the CIT 0520 to RQ (CIT 0171) or PPQ (CIT 0205) are discussed in-depth in various other topics in this forum.
Hi dpenabill,
May I ask whether in your observation CIT 0205, which is labeled "Physical Presence Questionnaire - Quality Assurance Exercise" (PPQ - QAE) is normally served when Citizenship application goes into "In Process" stage? Beyond this question can you kindly share your insights about the stages during which a citizenship application may receives various variety of RQs. Thank you.
I'm not @dpenabill, but I think his answers will be something along the following lines.
1) So far from what we've noticed on this forum, QAE is sent around the time the application begins processing ("In Process" on ECAS). I believe CPC-Sydney picks applications at random and sends out the QAE.
2) RQ can be issued at ANY stage of your application, even during or after the test
It is not clear whether QAE has replaced other forms of RQs, or whether all of these still exist.
The response by @razerblade mostly covers it.
Addressing some nuances: There is a lot we do not know about current processing practices, or even policies. There are clearly some changes taking place. We do not know for sure, for example, whether IRCC is employing the PPQ (CIT 0205) instead of the RQ (CIT 0171) when IRCC perceives there are reasons-to-question-presence. We do not know whether all recipients of the PPQ - QAE were in fact selected "randomly" (as the covering correspondence claims).
Note, for example, it has been many months since I have seen a reliable anecdotal report of an applicant being issued the CIT 0520 form (RQ-lite), and several months even since it has been confirmed an applicant was issued RQ (CIT 0171).
So the POSSIBILITIES I enumerated above is a list of what we have seen applicants receive BUT we do not know for sure which of these is currently still in use and we especially do not know the criteria employed in deciding who is sent what.
That said, if you do in fact get a request for further information or documentation, it is very likely to be in the range of what is enumerated in my previous post, or something very similar.
Please report back if you do receive a request for further information or documents, and provide the forum with at least pertinent details about the request, including its form, such as whether it is a letter or something else, and if it is a formal CIT form, its title and the CIT # .
As to what particular documents are more or less likely to be requested, if requested, it is likely to be among those included in the list of additional documents in the PPQ - QAE requests, which requests are discussed in detail in the "RQ versus Physical Presence Questionnaires, including CIT 0205" topic; for example, see page 2 of that discussion https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/rq-versus-physical-presence-questionnaires-including-cit-0205.534082/page-2
By the way, I do not give much weight to the APPEARANCE that the PPQ - QAE is only sent around the time an application gets IP status. The surge in reports of this obviously derives from the surge in applications made, at least in part and probably large part. My sense is that the issuance of PPQ - QAE by the CPC-Sydney office, prior to or attendant the referral to a local office, is replacing the prior triage criteria screening which generated pre-test RQ . . . whether it is entirely random, partially random, or criteria-driven. In any event, information derived from the surge in reported PPQ - QAE (there were very few, some but a very small number, PPQ - QAE reports prior to the October surge in applications) is NOWHERE NEAR SUFFICIENT to support many conclusions beyond the obvious, that some applicants are selected for the PPQ - QAE exercise by CPC-Sydney. It will be quite some time before we can gather enough information to understand the scope of changes made in how IRCC is screening applicants relative to potential reasons-to-question-presence. , either as to how IRCC is currently screening applications to identify when there are reasons-to-question-presence, OR how IRCC is proceeding when reasons-to-question-presence have been identified.
So again, the more reporting we get from those subject to any additional requests for information or documentation, the better we can understand the process going forward and provide some observations which will at least help applicants better understand what is happening and hopefully help applicants better navigate the process.
Addressing some context and background, for the purpose of requesting (begging?) for follow-up reporting about what actually happens:
Please forgive my using your query as a platform to, in effect, beg you and others to follow-up and provide the forum with some detail about what actually happens . . . such as, for you, to report if you do receive a request for more information or documents, and to give some detail about that, what form it comes in, that is whether it is a letter or a formal CIT #### form, its title, and if one of the formal forms the CIT # including the date in parentheses, such as CIT 0205 (11-2017) (this is the most recent version of the CIT 0205 I have seen referenced).
There is a lot we do not know about what goes on behind the curtains in IRCC citizenship application processing. For example, unless and until there is more anecdotal reporting (quantitatively), and more reliable reporting (qualitatively), it remains unclear how IRCC is currently processing applications identified as a presence-case (meaning an application regarding which IRCC questions whether the applicant met the presence requirement). There are some indications, for example, that IRCC has or is replacing the long-used full blown RQ CIT 0171 with the PPQ (Physical Presence Questionnaire CIT 0205). BUT we do not know for-sure, not yet.
THUS, if and when you receive a formal request for additional documents, PLEASE report here what you receive. Preferably in some detail, including Form # and title. Every piece in the puzzle helps the forum see more of the picture, more about how IRCC is processing applications, more about what applicants can anticipate and prepare for, more about how applicants can better navigate the process.
(plea for follow-up reporting to be continued in next post)
(plea for follow-up reporting continued from previous post)
WHY it is NOW so IMPORTANT to share information:
When I began following the process nearly a decade ago, Citizenship Operational Manuals detailed just about every step of the process, and did so in minute detail for many steps (such as assessment of residency). Changes, even small changes, were published by way of either an amendment to the respective operational manual or the issuance of fairly comprehensive Operational Bulletins. Additionally, denied citizenship applicants had a right of appeal so there was a steady stream of Federal Court decisions (around four dozen a year or so) illustrating actual cases, many of which illuminated particular details in the process, detailed the Minister's approach and arguments, and overall offered a window into how various situations and circumstances affected particular applicants. At the same time, CIC provided detailed statistics about processing timelines, publishing statistics on how long it took for 20% of applications to be processed, how long for 50% (the most useful statistic, the median, an approximation of the timeline MOST qualified applicants could reasonably expect), and how long it took for 80% to be processed (giving applicants an idea about the longest it might take so long as they were not subject to some non-routine processing like RQ). Back then every grant citizenship application had to be decided by a Citizenship Judge, and the Citizenship Commission (organization of Citizenship Judges) annually published a fairly comprehensive report about the number of applications made, number deemed abandoned or withdrawn, number denied, number granted, number of in-person hearings, total number decided, and details about the number of appeals and applications for mandamus and the outcome of all those, including number of appeals and applications for mandamus conceded by CIC, and so on.
All that information established a comprehensive background against which we could better understand the sporadic and oft times unreliable anecdotal reporting in the forum. The Citizenship Commission reports in conjunction with the official Federal Court decisions, in particular, established some known and certain parameters against which the forum anecdotal reports could be assessed. It was easier, then, to recognize troll pollution. It was easier to recognize when forum participants were erroneously reporting this or that event (this happens a real lot), and other than the trolls (they are always present and active), most would correct their account when prompted by what was known about how the process actually worked, usually with appreciation since the discussion typically helped them better understand what was happening and, in more than a few instances, helped them make decisions about how to best navigate the process going forward.
I still rely heavily on the body of information accumulated over the course of those years (and since, but recognizing that as the years have gone by our access to information has been continuously diminishing and in the meantime there have been many changes).
Then CIC, under the Harper government, began to limit sharing operational information, redacting important operational changes even in responses to ATI requests, reducing the amount of information publicly disseminated generally (such as timeline statistics), and overtly categorizing more and more of the process as confidential, not to be divulged to the public.
In the meantime, the Citizenship Commission stopped publishing reports or otherwise sharing much information at all about the disposition of citizenship applications.
Then Harper's government abruptly dropped the Citizenship Operational Manuals altogether and initiated the transition to PDIs (Program Delivery Instructions), many of which tend to be so general as to be glib, which offer barely a percentage of the information previously provided by operational manuals.
Then there were the changes implemented by Bill C-24 in 2014. The role of Citizenship Judges was radically reduced, so even if the Citizenship Commission was publishing an annual report it would offer dramatically less information. Among the biggest changes was the elimination of a denied applicant's right to appeal (which took effect in August 2014). Applicants still have a right to seek leave for judicial review, but the number of such applications actually granted leave, heard, and decided by the Federal Court have been reduced to a mere trickle. Indeed, in the last three years there have been fewer published decisions, in total, than a typical six month period prior to 2014, and the majority (a large majority) of these decisions are appeals by the Minister (the Minister does have the right of appeal). So far this year, for example, there has not been a single published Federal Court decision in a grant citizenship case, not even for an appeal brought by the Minister. The impact of this, in addition to severely limiting an applicant's access to review, has been to eliminate what had been a major source of information about how the process worked in actual practice, and about how CIC or now IRCC actually interpreted and applied the law.
The latter looms huge. Really huge. Since the number of applicant appeals was typically no more than three or four dozen a year, from among the tens of thousands of dispositions in citizenship application cases, the burden of the appeals could NOT have been a significant factor in deciding to eliminate the applicant's right of appeal. My strong sense is that the Harper government apprehended too much information was being divulged to the public given that Federal Court justices were discussing details about CIC policies, practices, and especially CIC's interpretations and in-practice application of the law, in their decisions. Without that body of ongoing information, we, the public, are severely handcuffed in our effort to better understand how things REALLY WORK behind the curtains in IRCC.
SO WE NEED APPLICANTS TO REPORT MORE. We need more comprehensive and detailed reports. We need particular facts rather than interpretations or conclusions. (The forum has long been rife with reports like "the CIC/IRCC agent was biased and discriminated against me and decided this or that because of this or that . . . " which offer no real information or insight; specific factual details are far more illuminating.) We need ACCURATE reports. We need detailed reports.
Scores and scores of routine applicants are sharing minute details such as the date they get AOR, IP, notice for the test, DM, and so on. Which is fine. It is nice to share. It is comforting to have fellow-travelers along the way. BUT most of that information can be gleaned relatively easily from general reporting AND it rarely provides information which applicants can actually use in making decisions. After all, for the vast majority of qualified applicants, once they have sent off the application the only decisions they need to make are very easily made: watch eCas and their mailbox, prepare for the test, and wait.
The more pressing need for additional information, in contrast, is that information
-- which will help PROSPECTIVE applicants decide WHEN to apply, based on what criteria (it seems the tendency is to answer the *when* question based almost entirely on when the applicant technically becomes eligible; prudent applicants will take much more than this into consideration before applying)
-- which will help those subject to non-routine processing better understand and better navigate the process; some of this is easy, and there is plenty of information in the forum, such as relative to a request for Finger Prints; in contrast, if and when an applicant gets involved in a presence-case (an application regarding which IRCC questions whether the applicant met the presence requirement), that is when things can get a lot more complicated and applicants could use more information to help them navigate the non-routine process AND, importantly, to corral anxieties (typically, understanding is at least somewhat comforting)
End-of-plea for follow-up reports.
WHY it is NOW so IMPORTANT to share information:
When I began following the process nearly a decade ago, Citizenship Operational Manuals detailed just about every step of the process, and did so in minute detail for many steps (such as assessment of residency). Changes, even small changes, were published by way of either an amendment to the respective operational manual or the issuance of fairly comprehensive Operational Bulletins. Additionally, denied citizenship applicants had a right of appeal so there was a steady stream of Federal Court decisions (around four dozen a year or so) illustrating actual cases, many of which illuminated particular details in the process, detailed the Minister's approach and arguments, and overall offered a window into how various situations and circumstances affected particular applicants. At the same time, CIC provided detailed statistics about processing timelines, publishing statistics on how long it took for 20% of applications to be processed, how long for 50% (the most useful statistic, the median, an approximation of the timeline MOST qualified applicants could reasonably expect), and how long it took for 80% to be processed (giving applicants an idea about the longest it might take so long as they were not subject to some non-routine processing like RQ). Back then every grant citizenship application had to be decided by a Citizenship Judge, and the Citizenship Commission (organization of Citizenship Judges) annually published a fairly comprehensive report about the number of applications made, number deemed abandoned or withdrawn, number denied, number granted, number of in-person hearings, total number decided, and details about the number of appeals and applications for mandamus and the outcome of all those, including number of appeals and applications for mandamus conceded by CIC, and so on.
All that information established a comprehensive background against which we could better understand the sporadic and oft times unreliable anecdotal reporting in the forum. The Citizenship Commission reports in conjunction with the official Federal Court decisions, in particular, established some known and certain parameters against which the forum anecdotal reports could be assessed. It was easier, then, to recognize troll pollution. It was easier to recognize when forum participants were erroneously reporting this or that event (this happens a real lot), and other than the trolls (they are always present and active), most would correct their account when prompted by what was known about how the process actually worked, usually with appreciation since the discussion typically helped them better understand what was happening and, in more than a few instances, helped them make decisions about how to best navigate the process going forward.
I still rely heavily on the body of information accumulated over the course of those years (and since, but recognizing that as the years have gone by our access to information has been continuously diminishing and in the meantime there have been many changes).
Then CIC, under the Harper government, began to limit sharing operational information, redacting important operational changes even in responses to ATI requests, reducing the amount of information publicly disseminated generally (such as timeline statistics), and overtly categorizing more and more of the process as confidential, not to be divulged to the public.
In the meantime, the Citizenship Commission stopped publishing reports or otherwise sharing much information at all about the disposition of citizenship applications.
Then Harper's government abruptly dropped the Citizenship Operational Manuals altogether and initiated the transition to PDIs (Program Delivery Instructions), many of which tend to be so general as to be glib, which offer barely a percentage of the information previously provided by operational manuals.
Then there were the changes implemented by Bill C-24 in 2014. The role of Citizenship Judges was radically reduced, so even if the Citizenship Commission was publishing an annual report it would offer dramatically less information. Among the biggest changes was the elimination of a denied applicant's right to appeal (which took effect in August 2014). Applicants still have a right to seek leave for judicial review, but the number of such applications actually granted leave, heard, and decided by the Federal Court have been reduced to a mere trickle. Indeed, in the last three years there have been fewer published decisions, in total, than a typical six month period prior to 2014, and the majority (a large majority) of these decisions are appeals by the Minister (the Minister does have the right of appeal). So far this year, for example, there has not been a single published Federal Court decision in a grant citizenship case, not even for an appeal brought by the Minister. The impact of this, in addition to severely limiting an applicant's access to review, has been to eliminate what had been a major source of information about how the process worked in actual practice, and about how CIC or now IRCC actually interpreted and applied the law.
The latter looms huge. Really huge. Since the number of applicant appeals was typically no more than three or four dozen a year, from among the tens of thousands of dispositions in citizenship application cases, the burden of the appeals could NOT have been a significant factor in deciding to eliminate the applicant's right of appeal. My strong sense is that the Harper government apprehended too much information was being divulged to the public given that Federal Court justices were discussing details about CIC policies, practices, and especially CIC's interpretations and in-practice application of the law, in their decisions. Without that body of ongoing information, we, the public, are severely handcuffed in our effort to better understand how things REALLY WORK behind the curtains in IRCC.
SO WE NEED APPLICANTS TO REPORT MORE. We need more comprehensive and detailed reports. We need particular facts rather than interpretations or conclusions. (The forum has long been rife with reports like "the CIC/IRCC agent was biased and discriminated against me and decided this or that because of this or that . . . " which offer no real information or insight; specific factual details are far more illuminating.) We need ACCURATE reports. We need detailed reports.
Scores and scores of routine applicants are sharing minute details such as the date they get AOR, IP, notice for the test, DM, and so on. Which is fine. It is nice to share. It is comforting to have fellow-travelers along the way. BUT most of that information can be gleaned relatively easily from general reporting AND it rarely provides information which applicants can actually use in making decisions. After all, for the vast majority of qualified applicants, once they have sent off the application the only decisions they need to make are very easily made: watch eCas and their mailbox, prepare for the test, and wait.
The more pressing need for additional information, in contrast, is that information
-- which will help PROSPECTIVE applicants decide WHEN to apply, based on what criteria (it seems the tendency is to answer the *when* question based almost entirely on when the applicant technically becomes eligible; prudent applicants will take much more than this into consideration before applying)
-- which will help those subject to non-routine processing better understand and better navigate the process; some of this is easy, and there is plenty of information in the forum, such as relative to a request for Finger Prints; in contrast, if and when an applicant gets involved in a presence-case (an application regarding which IRCC questions whether the applicant met the presence requirement), that is when things can get a lot more complicated and applicants could use more information to help them navigate the non-routine process AND, importantly, to corral anxieties (typically, understanding is at least somewhat comforting)
End-of-plea for follow-up reports.
I have an extensive travel list like you with more than 1.5 year absence in total, in Montreal the officer was lost with all travels and said, we may ask you some further documents for all travels, never talked about oath, just that I should hear back from them soon ...
I gave him the CBSA report on the spot just in case.
Never got any mail and status changed to DM 2 weeks after that bad interview so you never know .....
I gave him the CBSA report on the spot just in case.
Never got any mail and status changed to DM 2 weeks after that bad interview so you never know .....
Hey, did you request your CBSA report before or after you started your citizenship application? I have a huge travel history as well, but in the application form they suggest to not ask CBSA seperately to issue the travel record, so I'm hesitant. Having said that, I'd honestly be so relieved if I had the travel history record and could match it 1-to-1 with my passport stamps before the interview.
Edit: To provide some insight, I applied in early Nov, and my application has been IP since early Feb. Hopefully expecting a test invite within the next 2 months
I requested the CBSA report to fill my citizenship application so before but you can ask it after, it doesn't make any difference in the citizenship application.
If you have a huge travel history, I would strongly advise you to order that report, it's free and won't make any difference in your application, just make sure that the dates on your application are matching when you receive the report.
I would bring the CBSA report to the interview (and a printout of i94 history if you have some US travels) and only show it to the officer if he's suspecting something about your travel history, I think I would probably have received some kind of RQ if I didn't give him the report on the spot when he became suspicious about the travel dates (he was checking all the stamps and I use nexus card so I have probably 75% of missing entry stamps).
Yes I do, I have a really long travel history. I already have the I94 to show my US travel records. I think I'll go for it. Thanks!
Edit: I checked https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/pia-efvp/atip-aiprp/thr-rav-eng.html
And this quote scares me: 'When your travel history is needed as part of an application, such as the application for Canadian citizenship, check the form for the option to release your report. Using this option means that you will not have to request it yourself. When this option is available, requesting the report directly from the CBSA will cause a significant delay to your application process.'
I think my chance to obtain a report has passed, now I'm at the mercy of the regular process, with only my passport stamps and I94 as travel proof.
Last edited:
What it says is that it will delay if you request your report yourself and do NOT check the form option to release the report in your application.
You checked it so you can request the report it doesn't matter, they will not communicate your request to cic ...