That just confirms my concern about the future well being for this country, because if they start to bring only poor labour from the 3rd world here, guess what will happen with the wages for everybody along the line... the wages will remain low along with a decreasing standard of living.
Is the PR process worth it considering new bill C-24
- Thread starter NishiGogetter
- Start date
More regarding proof of intent:
Obviously I do not know the specifics as to how CIC will approach the intent requirement. It is a specified requirement, so at the least CIC will have to assess the application and determine whether the intent requirement is met.
As suggested by many, albeit not necessarily in a stand-alone affidavit format, the applicant will undoubtedly have to express or affirm that his or her intent, if granted citizenship, is to continue to reside in Canada. As I further noted before, it is possible that an applicant may be required to affirm this again, perhaps at the test or oath, or both, much like currently applicants must affirm that they have no prohibitions (such as pending criminal charges).
That in itself is "proof" in the evidentiary sense. But it might not be sufficient proof if there are facts or circumstances tending to indicate that is not the applicant's actual intent.
I offered some examples before:
-- an applicant who is living and working in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., while the application is pending, clearly does not have the intent, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada: a person cannot logically intend to continue to reside anywhere other than where the person is residing at the time, so a person living in Texas obviously does not have, cannot have, an intent to continue to reside in Canada no matter how vehemently he swears that is his intent
-- an applicant whose immediate family is living in India, who owns a home in India, and whose primary source of income is from a business or employment primarily based in India, but who is living in Canada while the application is pending, can assert it is his intent to continue to reside in Canada, but the extent of primary residential ties in India at the least suggests this individual's circumstances might be very closely scrutinized . . . and depending on the actual facts, a comparison of ties in India versus ties in Canada, the applicant's credibility generally, whether there is a credible explanation for some of these circumstances -- say the wife is staying in India to care for a terminally ill parent, and she is also the primary care taker for the couple's children, so she is staying in India and living in the family's home there until she and the rest of the family can rejoin her husband in Canada.
What conclusions or inferences CIC will draw in the latter circumstance will depend on many factors.
But basically it comes down to a fairly simple analysis for the vast majority of applicants; probably no issue, no doubts so long as::
-- the applicant properly makes the affirmation of intent, plus
-- there is minimal evidence (facts or circumstances) indicating the applicant is preserving or pursuing residential ties or employment abroad
In contrast, applicants who maintain strong ties abroad, or appear to be pursuing employment or employment opportunities abroad, sure, CIC is likely to take a closer look at such applicants, impose RQ (or comparable request for documentation) if CIC has concerns, and what CIC determines will vary depending on what facts and circumstances and evidence there is, and on what inferences from the evidence CIC reasonably makes.
It warrants emphasizing, again, that the history of Canadian law has many, many examples of cases in which "intent" is a pivotal element, many in which there were questions about what facts tend to disprove or otherwise contradict an individual's stated intent. This is really not new territory.
More regarding proof of intent, part II: tax returns
The import of the additional requirement to be present in Canada at least 183 days in each of four calendar years within the previous six years should not be underestimated. This requirement is obviously intended to work in conjunction with the requirement to comply with Canadian tax laws.
And this is highly relevant to the intent requirement because (my sense) one of the reasons for these requirements is to compel PRs (those planning on becoming citizens) to file resident tax returns in Canada (persons present in Canada for 183 or more days in a calendar year are presumed to be a resident for Canadian tax purposes), which in turn require at least the disclosure of (and perhaps some payment of tax on) worldwide income. Make no mistake, CIC is likely to be looking for applicants with continuing income from business or employment abroad, precisely because these are evidentiary factors which might indicate the applicant's intent is not to continue residing in Canada.
Lack of trust for CIC decision-making:
I recognize that many distrust CIC and anticipate a lack of good faith in how CIC evaluates the facts and circumstances. I acknowledge that in the last several years, since Jason Kenney was Minister of CIC and continuing with Chris Alexander, CIC has clearly trended toward a stricter, sometimes more harsh approach, some might think draconian (the 2012 OB 407 process was indeed draconian and almost brought citizenship application processing to a standstill).
These things are hard to judge in the abstract without hard evidence and reliable statistics. The Federal Court cases represent only a tiny sliver of the cases which are denied by CJs, let alone the number given RQ and dragged through multiple years of processing. Anecdotal reports in forums like this too are but a tiny sliver of the actual cases, and rife with inherent unreliability.
So it is not easy to pass judgment on how fair CIC and CJs have been, currently are, and will be in the future.
That said, we know that last year two hundred thousand or more PRs became new citizens. We know that in most previous years (2012 an anomaly), the number of applicants denied tended to be a small percentage compared to the number approved. For example, in 2007 through 2009, the number approved was around a half million, those denied maybe 25k . . . but yes, it was around 2009 that CIC (I think Jason Kenney was the Minister by then, if not it was then Diane Finley) began imposing more difficult knowledge tests and increasing the number of applicants given RQ, began a more strict approach to shortfall applicants and increased processing timelines dramatically, and stopped publishing a lot of the statistics which helped those of us in the public to better understand the process and the extent to which hurdles or pitfalls might obstruct the path to citizenship.
Nonetheless, overall, my opinion anyway, is that for the vast majority of applicants, CIC handles the application professionally, competently, and fairly. I recognize that particularly for those who applied in 2011 and 2012, policies and practices at CIC swept a hugely disproportionate number of qualified applicants into the mire of residency case processing, and that that example alone has generated a great deal of distrust toward CIC. Much of that appears to have been, so to say, fixed, and is less a problem today. Nonetheless, yes, many of those still being dragged into the mire of residency case processing are qualified, legitimate applicants who deserve better.
There will always be some failure in a bureaucracy, particularly one as large and cumbersome and charged with making some difficult calls, as is CIC. Perfection is not on the horizon. But overall most applicants who meet the qualifications, who are settled in Canada and planning their near future life to continue to be in Canada, should encounter no serious problems in obtaining citizenship . . . either now or after the revised provisions come into force.
How well a government does, though, is measured by the more difficult cases. I admit, that remains to be seen . . . and especially so if after the coming election the Conservatives continue to form the government.
All I can suggest is that prospective applicants do their best to be in a strong position, to not be among those with a more difficult case, when they apply, at least to the extent that is practical. Everyone should be keeping good records. Everyone should at least nominally prepare for the possibility of being issued RQ.
But, sure, as I noted before, life is complicated, and life for immigrants tends to often be more complicated than non-immigrants -- after all, we have real ties abroad, many of which we want to preserve, including business contacts in addition to family and close friends. So, sure, for some it may not be so cut-and-dry, so clear. For these applicants, it is even more important to get one's records in order, to conscientiously consider the best time to make the application, make it when the case is strong and can be well documented.
But for those who are just trying to stay the minimum in Canada before taking that gravvy job in the U.S. or going back home with a passport which will facilitate career opportunities abroad, CIC will be watching for you and doing its best to spoil your plans.
Obviously I do not know the specifics as to how CIC will approach the intent requirement. It is a specified requirement, so at the least CIC will have to assess the application and determine whether the intent requirement is met.
As suggested by many, albeit not necessarily in a stand-alone affidavit format, the applicant will undoubtedly have to express or affirm that his or her intent, if granted citizenship, is to continue to reside in Canada. As I further noted before, it is possible that an applicant may be required to affirm this again, perhaps at the test or oath, or both, much like currently applicants must affirm that they have no prohibitions (such as pending criminal charges).
That in itself is "proof" in the evidentiary sense. But it might not be sufficient proof if there are facts or circumstances tending to indicate that is not the applicant's actual intent.
I offered some examples before:
-- an applicant who is living and working in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., while the application is pending, clearly does not have the intent, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada: a person cannot logically intend to continue to reside anywhere other than where the person is residing at the time, so a person living in Texas obviously does not have, cannot have, an intent to continue to reside in Canada no matter how vehemently he swears that is his intent
-- an applicant whose immediate family is living in India, who owns a home in India, and whose primary source of income is from a business or employment primarily based in India, but who is living in Canada while the application is pending, can assert it is his intent to continue to reside in Canada, but the extent of primary residential ties in India at the least suggests this individual's circumstances might be very closely scrutinized . . . and depending on the actual facts, a comparison of ties in India versus ties in Canada, the applicant's credibility generally, whether there is a credible explanation for some of these circumstances -- say the wife is staying in India to care for a terminally ill parent, and she is also the primary care taker for the couple's children, so she is staying in India and living in the family's home there until she and the rest of the family can rejoin her husband in Canada.
What conclusions or inferences CIC will draw in the latter circumstance will depend on many factors.
But basically it comes down to a fairly simple analysis for the vast majority of applicants; probably no issue, no doubts so long as::
-- the applicant properly makes the affirmation of intent, plus
-- there is minimal evidence (facts or circumstances) indicating the applicant is preserving or pursuing residential ties or employment abroad
In contrast, applicants who maintain strong ties abroad, or appear to be pursuing employment or employment opportunities abroad, sure, CIC is likely to take a closer look at such applicants, impose RQ (or comparable request for documentation) if CIC has concerns, and what CIC determines will vary depending on what facts and circumstances and evidence there is, and on what inferences from the evidence CIC reasonably makes.
It warrants emphasizing, again, that the history of Canadian law has many, many examples of cases in which "intent" is a pivotal element, many in which there were questions about what facts tend to disprove or otherwise contradict an individual's stated intent. This is really not new territory.
More regarding proof of intent, part II: tax returns
The import of the additional requirement to be present in Canada at least 183 days in each of four calendar years within the previous six years should not be underestimated. This requirement is obviously intended to work in conjunction with the requirement to comply with Canadian tax laws.
And this is highly relevant to the intent requirement because (my sense) one of the reasons for these requirements is to compel PRs (those planning on becoming citizens) to file resident tax returns in Canada (persons present in Canada for 183 or more days in a calendar year are presumed to be a resident for Canadian tax purposes), which in turn require at least the disclosure of (and perhaps some payment of tax on) worldwide income. Make no mistake, CIC is likely to be looking for applicants with continuing income from business or employment abroad, precisely because these are evidentiary factors which might indicate the applicant's intent is not to continue residing in Canada.
Lack of trust for CIC decision-making:
I recognize that many distrust CIC and anticipate a lack of good faith in how CIC evaluates the facts and circumstances. I acknowledge that in the last several years, since Jason Kenney was Minister of CIC and continuing with Chris Alexander, CIC has clearly trended toward a stricter, sometimes more harsh approach, some might think draconian (the 2012 OB 407 process was indeed draconian and almost brought citizenship application processing to a standstill).
These things are hard to judge in the abstract without hard evidence and reliable statistics. The Federal Court cases represent only a tiny sliver of the cases which are denied by CJs, let alone the number given RQ and dragged through multiple years of processing. Anecdotal reports in forums like this too are but a tiny sliver of the actual cases, and rife with inherent unreliability.
So it is not easy to pass judgment on how fair CIC and CJs have been, currently are, and will be in the future.
That said, we know that last year two hundred thousand or more PRs became new citizens. We know that in most previous years (2012 an anomaly), the number of applicants denied tended to be a small percentage compared to the number approved. For example, in 2007 through 2009, the number approved was around a half million, those denied maybe 25k . . . but yes, it was around 2009 that CIC (I think Jason Kenney was the Minister by then, if not it was then Diane Finley) began imposing more difficult knowledge tests and increasing the number of applicants given RQ, began a more strict approach to shortfall applicants and increased processing timelines dramatically, and stopped publishing a lot of the statistics which helped those of us in the public to better understand the process and the extent to which hurdles or pitfalls might obstruct the path to citizenship.
Nonetheless, overall, my opinion anyway, is that for the vast majority of applicants, CIC handles the application professionally, competently, and fairly. I recognize that particularly for those who applied in 2011 and 2012, policies and practices at CIC swept a hugely disproportionate number of qualified applicants into the mire of residency case processing, and that that example alone has generated a great deal of distrust toward CIC. Much of that appears to have been, so to say, fixed, and is less a problem today. Nonetheless, yes, many of those still being dragged into the mire of residency case processing are qualified, legitimate applicants who deserve better.
There will always be some failure in a bureaucracy, particularly one as large and cumbersome and charged with making some difficult calls, as is CIC. Perfection is not on the horizon. But overall most applicants who meet the qualifications, who are settled in Canada and planning their near future life to continue to be in Canada, should encounter no serious problems in obtaining citizenship . . . either now or after the revised provisions come into force.
How well a government does, though, is measured by the more difficult cases. I admit, that remains to be seen . . . and especially so if after the coming election the Conservatives continue to form the government.
All I can suggest is that prospective applicants do their best to be in a strong position, to not be among those with a more difficult case, when they apply, at least to the extent that is practical. Everyone should be keeping good records. Everyone should at least nominally prepare for the possibility of being issued RQ.
But, sure, as I noted before, life is complicated, and life for immigrants tends to often be more complicated than non-immigrants -- after all, we have real ties abroad, many of which we want to preserve, including business contacts in addition to family and close friends. So, sure, for some it may not be so cut-and-dry, so clear. For these applicants, it is even more important to get one's records in order, to conscientiously consider the best time to make the application, make it when the case is strong and can be well documented.
But for those who are just trying to stay the minimum in Canada before taking that gravvy job in the U.S. or going back home with a passport which will facilitate career opportunities abroad, CIC will be watching for you and doing its best to spoil your plans.
Exactly,
I also expect the Intend to reside in Canada to be tested properly before the test and before the Oath, which leads to the idea that the processing times will stay intentionally slow.
The people who will apply this and next year after the effective date most probably will suffer the slowest processing times of their applications.
After the last elections we all know the end result from their measure to introduce the new form of control called RQ... A lot of people from 2011 and 2012 are still waiting their applications to be processed.
I expect the same scenario here.
The aim is everyone to be tested and therefore the applicants in the next two years will feel the heavy impact over their applications as a slow processing time.
I also expect the Intend to reside in Canada to be tested properly before the test and before the Oath, which leads to the idea that the processing times will stay intentionally slow.
The people who will apply this and next year after the effective date most probably will suffer the slowest processing times of their applications.
After the last elections we all know the end result from their measure to introduce the new form of control called RQ... A lot of people from 2011 and 2012 are still waiting their applications to be processed.
I expect the same scenario here.
The aim is everyone to be tested and therefore the applicants in the next two years will feel the heavy impact over their applications as a slow processing time.
The thing is that being eligible before the submission of the application is not enough, because after the submission of the application the intend to reside will be activated and if they decide that you don't have the intend to reside here they will reject your application and as an end result you can scratch wasted the last 5-7 years of your live.
We are living in a global world, and they want to keep the people locked in Canada only to give citizenship. And this is after the people being eligible to apply, but being eligible is just 50% of the game. The other 50% is the period of intend to reside which also can take years and if you dare to take a good opportunity for you and your family abroad, just forget about being granted with Canadian citizenship.
We are living in a global world, and they want to keep the people locked in Canada only to give citizenship. And this is after the people being eligible to apply, but being eligible is just 50% of the game. The other 50% is the period of intend to reside which also can take years and if you dare to take a good opportunity for you and your family abroad, just forget about being granted with Canadian citizenship.
There is no way your expectation can be real since cic says an application will be processed and completed within 1 year when the process changes to 1-step.MUFC said:
Otherwise there will be legal battles.
cic thought okay we got thousands of applications to process,how can we have more to time to process them? Yeah! Lets make a new law and push the PRs of 2013(and 2014 2015 ...) residency requirements further at least 2 years so we will have more time and fool them with this.
We are not fools just do not want to be "bad" citizens
there is also no way CIC can spoil my plans as long as i have the passport
When you came CIC told you that after 1095 days physical presence here you can get a citizenship... can you tell how much time you have to wait now here as extra time over 1095 days.
Just because they say something doesn't mean that it will happen. For me that promise sounds like pre-election one.
The intend of CIC has changed.
Just because they say something doesn't mean that it will happen. For me that promise sounds like pre-election one.
The intend of CIC has changed.
That is because people shut up my friend and say yes sir you are right you are the bossMUFC said:
There is no boss in this country
ZingyDNA
Champion Member
- Aug 12, 2013
- 185
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- CPP-Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 2111
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 28-06-2013
- AOR Received.
- 28-08-2013
- IELTS Request
- Sent with Application
- Med's Request
- 21-02-2014 (principal applicant)
- Med's Done....
- 07-03-2014 (both, upfront for spouse)
- Passport Req..
- 10-04-2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- 22-04-2014
- LANDED..........
- 13-06-2014
CanadianCountry
Hero Member
- Jan 26, 2011
- 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
C-24 legal challenge already got defeated In the court. Dont know if there would be any more court challenges.
Also for a lot of people Temp work permits are expiring today. As i look around there is less empathy amd more disgust and hate for these temp workers. People are saying screw these people, go leave our country.
Also for a lot of people Temp work permits are expiring today. As i look around there is less empathy amd more disgust and hate for these temp workers. People are saying screw these people, go leave our country.
quasar81 said:
ZingyDNA
Champion Member
- Aug 12, 2013
- 185
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- CPP-Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 2111
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 28-06-2013
- AOR Received.
- 28-08-2013
- IELTS Request
- Sent with Application
- Med's Request
- 21-02-2014 (principal applicant)
- Med's Done....
- 07-03-2014 (both, upfront for spouse)
- Passport Req..
- 10-04-2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- 22-04-2014
- LANDED..........
- 13-06-2014
Where do you get that idea? After you get citizenship, you can live wherever whenever w/o worrying about losing it.quasar81 said:
CanadianCountry
Hero Member
- Jan 26, 2011
- 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
I agree. With old law the physical presence requirement was clear, BUT with new law there is NO fixed number days of physical presence. It can very well be 2000 days or 5000 days.
The minimum physical presence requirement under new law is 1825 days, but max physical presence req is completely unknown.
The minimum physical presence requirement under new law is 1825 days, but max physical presence req is completely unknown.
MUFC said:
4/6 years ?CanadianCountry said:
If mike has been in canada since 2010 and pr since 2010 in 2014 mike had the right to apply for citizenship
If mike has been in canada since 2013 as a pr,he will be eliglible to apply in 2017
It is clear to me
CanadianCountry
Hero Member
- Jan 26, 2011
- 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
ZingyDNA,
Losing or not losing is a secondary thing. Because if CIC doubts your intent to stay you will not get the citizenship. So no question arises about losing something (citizenship), when a person doesnt even have one (due to denied application).
Losing or not losing is a secondary thing. Because if CIC doubts your intent to stay you will not get the citizenship. So no question arises about losing something (citizenship), when a person doesnt even have one (due to denied application).
ZingyDNA said:
You are talking about the eligibility days before the submission of the application, but there are extra days as requirement because of intend to reside until the oath. So being eligible is NOT enough, because it's only 50% of the rule to be GRANTED with citizenship at the end.bkara said: