Residency Questionnaire

[Arkansas2045]

Hello all,

My wife today went for her citizenship test which she aced without any issues.

During the interview, however, she ran into some issues regarding the Physical Presence questionnaire. We forgot to include about 8 day trips to USA which, frankly, did not last for more than 3 hours each... in some cases, we were in and out in less than an hour as we crossed the border to simply renew the US homeland security card for my wife.

Most of the trips were related to renewal of security pass and it never really clicked with us that we should also include these trips on the Physical Presence questionnaire. Assumed same day entry/exit meant we were still present in Canada for that day so we don't have to report it. Take full responsibility for the error. We also screwed up on the dates to a week long trip to California... the number of days spent was accurate but we input incorrect dates. Again, our error indeed. We were a bit complacent maybe because my wife met way more than the minimum required presence days... Silly silly errors that are now costing us some grief.

Now back to the interview... My wife I guess wasn't expecting the pointy questions from the officer and may not have been confident in her responses. Even though she did mention that most of the trips were made to renew the homeland security pass, the interviewer was just not polite and understanding. Kept cutting my wife off and was condescending which made my wife even more nervous... Kept saying that she would have to investigate to see if there is "funny" business going on here. My wife works for a major bank and is an employee since 2013... has filed her taxes regularly... and I am sure CIC would've pulled all the past tax returns. Receiving that "funny" business remark was quiet rude and quiet upsetting to be honest. Plus, my wife was the last one to be called for the interview, and the officer seemed to be in a hurry to get out of there. Towards the end she cut my wife off only to turn around and tell one her colleagues that she had a long day and she is going home now!!! My wife just got up and left...

Anyways, the officer said she will investigate the issue further and it may take up to a year or even more to hear back from CIC on this matter. My questions are, what would be the next steps taken by CIC to verify that my wife was not engaged in some sort of "funny" business? Are they going to ask us to complete additional questionnaires? Should we now expect to see a citizenship judge who will hear our case and may grant citizenship approval?

Will CIC contact US Border Protection and ask them to provide entry/exit details? I have already pulled that info from the I94 website but the interviewer told my wife that she doesn't want any further details from her and we should now just wait at the mercy of CIC. If they need more information, they will reach out.

Sorry for a long winded message... Bottom line: what should we expect next?

Best regards,

 

[razerblade]

Hello all,

My wife today went for her citizenship test which she aced without any issues.

During the interview, however, she ran into some issues regarding the Physical Presence questionnaire. We forgot to include about 8 day trips to USA which, frankly, did not last for more than 3 hours each... in some cases, we were in and out in less than an hour as we crossed the border to simply renew the US homeland security card for my wife.

Most of the trips were related to renewal of security pass and it never really clicked with us that we should also include these trips on the Physical Presence questionnaire. Assumed same day entry/exit meant we were still present in Canada for that day so we don't have to report it. Take full responsibility for the error. We also screwed up on the dates to a week long trip to California... the number of days spent was accurate but we input incorrect dates. Again, our error indeed. We were a bit complacent maybe because my wife met way more than the minimum required presence days... Silly silly errors that are now costing us some grief.

Now back to the interview... My wife I guess wasn't expecting the pointy questions from the officer and may not have been confident in her responses. Even though she did mention that most of the trips were made to renew the homeland security pass, the interviewer was just not polite and understanding. Kept cutting my wife off and was condescending which made my wife even more nervous... Kept saying that she would have to investigate to see if there is "funny" business going on here. My wife works for a major bank and is an employee since 2013... has filed her taxes regularly... and I am sure CIC would've pulled all the past tax returns. Receiving that "funny" business remark was quiet rude and quiet upsetting to be honest. Plus, my wife was the last one to be called for the interview, and the officer seemed to be in a hurry to get out of there. Towards the end she cut my wife off only to turn around and tell one her colleagues that she had a long day and she is going home now!!! My wife just got up and left...

Anyways, the officer said she will investigate the issue further and it may take up to a year or even more to hear back from CIC on this matter. My questions are, what would be the next steps taken by CIC to verify that my wife was not engaged in some sort of "funny" business? Are they going to ask us to complete additional questionnaires? Should we now expect to see a citizenship judge who will hear our case and may grant citizenship approval?

Will CIC contact US Border Protection and ask them to provide entry/exit details? I have already pulled that info from the I94 website but the interviewer told my wife that she doesn't want any further details from her and we should now just wait at the mercy of CIC. If they need more information, they will reach out.

Sorry for a long winded message... Bottom line: what should we expect next?

Best regards,

May I ask your location ? Sounds a bit unusual. Seems like the officer was having a bad day and took it out on your wife. CBSA records only show entries into Canada, not the exits AFAIK. Missing those trips may have fired some red flags. The officer is probably in doubt of the claimed physical presence. Given her behavior, I'm honestly surprised she didn't issue an RQ on the spot.

It's difficult to say what will happen next. Could be an RQ or could just get the oath invite. Perhaps, others who may have had a similar experience can share their thoughts.

I would suggest that you submit a request for entry/exit records from the US under FOIA to be prepared. I94 records aren't entirely accurate.

How to order USA entry records (FOIA) ?
(Credit user steve)
1- go to this link: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/request/publicPreCreate
2- create an account or continue as a guest ( I recommend the creation of an account)
3- select the agency: CBP FOIA division
4- fill in all your personal information.
5- type of record requested it will be: Entry/ exit
6- in the description put the details of your request.
7- click preview and submit.

 

[Arkansas2045]

Thank you for your response Razerblade... The test was conducted at a Service Canada location in Mississauga.

Appreciate your assistance and I will certainly request for entry/exit records. Never know... we might be asked to provide that.

Would love to hear the experiences of other forum members who have also gone through this ordeal!

Regards,

 

[dpenabill]

Overall, it appears there is a good chance that this will still go OK. But that depends on some particulars, some of which I will attempt to address in more depth.

So there is NO reason to panic. For the immediate future it is a waiting game. There is still a good chance that the next step is being scheduled to take the oath, in a week or month, or six months. But sure, it could perhaps be longer.

There is a chance she will receive some requests from IRCC. I will address this in more depth below. As I note below, it is IMPORTANT, really important, to throw assumptions away and make a concerted effort to carefully read and follow the instructions. It is also important to be as complete and accurate as possible, and to acknowledge any estimations or approximations or guesses.

There are potential circumstances which could push this toward a full-blown presence case, such as IRCC challenging the presence calculation and referring the case to a Citizenship Judge, but there are some big steps to take before that would happen. And this is NOT likely unless IRCC concludes there is deliberate misrepresentation of presence in Canada. Trying to forecast the risk of this is near impossible, as there are way too many variables that can influence how something like this unfolds. For example, however, if you have been living or working outside Canada extensively during the relevant time period, that is a factor which could significantly increase the risk of more scrutiny and perhaps more skepticism, potentially increasing the risk that your wife's physical presence calculation could be challenged. Explanation to follow.

For now: wait and see how this goes. Fair chance it will be OK. Just in case there are some wrinkles, however, I offer some more in-depth observations below:


FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS:

During the interview, however, she ran into some issues regarding the Physical Presence questionnaire. We forgot to include about 8 day trips to USA which . . .

Assumed same day entry/exit meant we were still present in Canada for that day so we don't have to report it.

The thing is, completing a complex application, like an application for citizenship, SHOULD NEVER BE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

I have been criticized at times for being repetitive or condescending, for repeatedly posting the reminder:

If in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.​

But your report illustrates how important this is, and how all too easily applicants still fail to simply follow the instructions.

The instructions clearly explain that ALL international trips MUST be reported, including day trips. This instruction is clear and prominent in IRCC online information, in the Instruction Guide for making a citizenship application, in the online physical presence calculator, and in FAQs for the presence calculation. Almost impossible to miss if the instructions are even cursorily read.

I do not offer this to chastise. I offer this to emphasize that it is time to turn the page and approach the process with due deliberation, beginning with following the instructions. There is a good chance this is just a small bump and it will go OK from here. But there is a chance your wife will need to respond to further requests from IRCC. If this happens, it is important to follow the instructions. It is important to read the instructions, to carefully consider what they mean, what they ask, and to conscientiously, diligently follow them. Throw your assumptions away.

As noted, there is a good chance this is just a small bump and it will go OK from here. Since your wife has a large margin of presence over the minimum requirements and a history of regular work in Canada, and assuming that this is true for you as well (in contrast, if you have been working abroad, such as in the U.S., that could seriously complicate things), the odds are probably quite good that IRCC will scrutinize the application more thoroughly, perhaps do some collateral research, and then grant citizenship.

But of course there is a chance your wife will need to respond to further requests from IRCC. In particular, there is the possibility that IRCC could request additional information and documentation, ranging from some particular requests (documents related to proof of employment, or proof of interest in a home, perhaps record of movement from other countries), to what is called RQ-lite (CIT 0520), or perhaps the full-blown RQ (CIT 0171), or perhaps IRCC has replaced using the RQ forms and is now using a PPQ form (Physical Presence Questionnaire) similar to or the same as the PPQ-QAE (Physical Presence Questionnaire -- Quality Assurance Exercise CIT 0205), including CIT 0205 which is being discussed at length in a topic titled "RQ versus Physical Presence Questionnaires," which includes fairly comprehensive observations about what applicants are asked to submit.

We also screwed up on the dates to a week long trip to California... the number of days spent was accurate but we input incorrect dates.

For the vast majority of applicants an error like this usually has no impact or minimal impact. But of course it illustrates that the applicant is not an entirely reliable reporter of the facts, since the applicant has reported inaccurate facts. By itself, it is insignificant. IRCC is well acquainted with applicants making mistakes and does not penalize applicants for minor and isolated errors.

If, however, this is one more inaccuracy among other inaccuracies, that tends to indicate a pattern, and that tends to suggest the applicant's information cannot be relied upon to be an accurate account of facts.

The applicant's credibility is one of the most important elements in successfully making a citizenship application. Perhaps second in importance, second only to the actual facts and meeting the qualifying requirements themselves. The problem is that most of the information in the application is dependent on the extent to which the applicant has accurately provided that information. The burden of proof is on the applicant. If the applicant's credibility is compromised, that makes it a lot more difficult for the applicant to meet the burden of proof.

Many think of credibility in terms of honesty. And to be sure, if an applicant is perceived to not be honest, the applicant's credibility is seriously compromised. But credibility is really about how much a person can be relied upon to give an accurate report of facts. A dishonest person cannot be relied upon much, for sure. But a person who has made numerous errors in reporting the facts has also demonstrated that they are not an entirely reliable reported of facts. How much so varies.

Which of course leads this discussion back to the omissions, the failure to report a rather substantial number of cross-border trips.

This in turn brings up the interview . . . to be continued in next post.

 

[dpenabill]

Regarding the Interview:

My wife I guess wasn't expecting the pointy questions from the officer and may not have been confident in her responses. . . . have to investigate to see if there is "funny" business going on here. . . .


Receiving that "funny" business remark was quiet rude and quiet upsetting to be honest.

Anyways, the officer said she will investigate the issue further and it may take up to a year or even more to hear back from CIC on this matter.

It is very difficult to reliably conclude much about the interview. The interviewer's demeanor is often not a good indicator of how things actually went. Applicants have been totally surprised when instead of being scheduled for the oath, they got RQ in the mail after what they perceived to have been a very good interview experience in which they understood the interviewer to have no issues, no problems at all. Other applicants report being very surprised in the opposite way, getting a notice to take the oath shortly after an interview in which the interviewer seemed hostile and leaning heavily against the applicant.

It is the interviewer's job to test the applicant. And where, as here, it is clear the applicant has either deliberately failed to disclose trips outside Canada or failed to follow the instructions resulting in submitting inaccurate information, it is the interviewer's job, the interviewer's mandate, to more thoroughly test the applicant. Confronting a witness who has provided inaccurate information is not rude. Eight omissions in conjunction with other erroneous dates easily suggests the possibility of "funny business."

Which brings the discussion to how well your wife was able to give reasonable, forthright, forthcoming, and credible responses to the interviewer's questions. How that went could have a big impact. Again, the interviewer's demeanor does NOT reliably indicate how that went.

You will just have to wait and see.

Obviously, if the interviewer perceived deliberate deception or evasiveness, that will tend to push things in a negative direction, leading to something like RQ or PPQ. This is possible.

If the interviewer perceived your wife was unsure, that could go either way, and which way could depend on how strong the case is otherwise.

If the interviewer concluded that your wife was a bit shaky in the details but overall was honest and reliable but for these particular errors, your wife could be getting a notice to attend the oath any day, next week, next month, in a few months. This is a real possibility. Perhaps the most likely outcome.

As previously noted, though, there are circumstances which could tip the scales in the more problematic direction. Among such circumstances could be indications your wife has ongoing strong ties abroad (employment or residential), or that you have been working or living abroad (if an applicant's spouse continues have strong ties abroad, and particularly if working or living abroad, that is a big risk indicator). There are others. Too many to enumerate.

. . . and I am sure CIC would've pulled all the past tax returns . . .

No. IRCC does not pull an applicant's tax returns. There is some information sharing with CRA, but that appears to be largely limited to verification of SIN and general level information such as whether the individual has filed a tax return for certain years. IRCC may request (and typically does as part of RQ or PPQ) the applicant submit various tax related documents, ranging from copies of T4s to Notices of Assessment, in conjunction with other documentation related to employment (PPQ-QAE is asking for letters from employers for example).

If a formal fraud investigation is done, that is a different deal. That can involve the RCMP and requests for information from other agencies, such as CRA, pursuant to specified grounds, similar (albeit without the participation of the target) to what might be used to justify a warrant to obtain documents in a judicial proceeding. This does not happen often. This only happens when IRCC has concluded there are reasons to believe there is overt fraud on the part of the applicant.



Full quote of OP's report:

Hello all,

My wife today went for her citizenship test which she aced without any issues.

During the interview, however, she ran into some issues regarding the Physical Presence questionnaire. We forgot to include about 8 day trips to USA which, frankly, did not last for more than 3 hours each... in some cases, we were in and out in less than an hour as we crossed the border to simply renew the US homeland security card for my wife.

Most of the trips were related to renewal of security pass and it never really clicked with us that we should also include these trips on the Physical Presence questionnaire. Assumed same day entry/exit meant we were still present in Canada for that day so we don't have to report it. Take full responsibility for the error. We also screwed up on the dates to a week long trip to California... the number of days spent was accurate but we input incorrect dates. Again, our error indeed. We were a bit complacent maybe because my wife met way more than the minimum required presence days... Silly silly errors that are now costing us some grief.

Now back to the interview... My wife I guess wasn't expecting the pointy questions from the officer and may not have been confident in her responses. Even though she did mention that most of the trips were made to renew the homeland security pass, the interviewer was just not polite and understanding. Kept cutting my wife off and was condescending which made my wife even more nervous... Kept saying that she would have to investigate to see if there is "funny" business going on here. My wife works for a major bank and is an employee since 2013... has filed her taxes regularly... and I am sure CIC would've pulled all the past tax returns. Receiving that "funny" business remark was quiet rude and quiet upsetting to be honest. Plus, my wife was the last one to be called for the interview, and the officer seemed to be in a hurry to get out of there. Towards the end she cut my wife off only to turn around and tell one her colleagues that she had a long day and she is going home now!!! My wife just got up and left...

Anyways, the officer said she will investigate the issue further and it may take up to a year or even more to hear back from CIC on this matter. My questions are, what would be the next steps taken by CIC to verify that my wife was not engaged in some sort of "funny" business? Are they going to ask us to complete additional questionnaires? Should we now expect to see a citizenship judge who will hear our case and may grant citizenship approval?

Will CIC contact US Border Protection and ask them to provide entry/exit details? I have already pulled that info from the I94 website but the interviewer told my wife that she doesn't want any further details from her and we should now just wait at the mercy of CIC. If they need more information, they will reach out.

Sorry for a long winded message... Bottom line: what should we expect next?

Best regards,

 

[Arkansas2045]

I guess my issue was with the way the interview was conducted. But from reading your detailed response, I guess we should've expected that. Applicant's credibility and honesty was put to test due to errors committed and the applicant was too nervous to respond confidently. I understand we made errors and i don't blame anyone else but us for not following the instructions to the letter. I don't think IRCC will find any "funny business" if they decide to look into my background as well. I am a Canadian citizen since 2001 and have been working with the same bank as my wife for almost 20 years. I hope for the best case scenario and will keep our fingers crossed.

But most importantly, I wanted to thank you for your detailed response. Sincerely appreciate the effort given that everyone's time is precious and some of information provided above has been repeated and stated before. Hoping that others will learn from our personal experience and be more diligent when filling out these applications.

Best regards,