Hi all,
Quick question:
I live in Toronto and recently submitted my application.
In December I am planning to go on a 3 week vacation to europe and come back.
I live here in Toronto and have a full-time career job.
If i do not contact IRCC regarding my 3-week vacation, will i definitely get RQ'd during my application processing period ? (before and after test).
I'm asking because i've heard of people in similar situation and IRCC grew suspicious because the applicant went on a 3 week vacation after submitting the app.
SHORT ANSWER: So long as the applicant does not miss an appointment, brief travel abroad after applying should NOT increase the applicant's risk of RQ. The applicant's risk of RQ will mostly depend on other facts and circumstances in the individual applicant's situation.
LONGER, EXPLANATORY RESPONSE:
There appears to only be a small number of applicants issued full blown RQ (CIT 0171) these days. This appears to happen ONLY when the facts and circumstances, in the individual applicant's specific situation, raise actual concerns about the credibility of the applicant's information, especially in the physical presence calculation, including, in particular, overt indications the applicant's physical presence calculation is erroneous.
Obviously the RISK of RQ increases if the applicant applied with only a small margin above the minimum (less than 30 days, say) AND there are indications the applicant failed to report some trip abroad or there are significant inaccuracies in the physical presence calculation.
There are other, lesser versions, less intrusive RQ-related requests, which are more common, which can range from a simple request for one or two additional documents to the CIT 0520 asking for several documents. (CIT 0171 is the full blown version of RQ; CIT 0520 is known as RQ-lite.) These may also cause some delay, a somewhat longer timeline, BUT generally no where near as long a timeline as the full blown RQ might.
The lesser versions of RQ-related requests are typically triggered by this or that particular factor. And these are not uniformly applied. For example, frequent travel via the U.S. appears to trigger certain RQ-related requests for some applicants but has no negative impact for others.
As others have commented, it appears that brief excursions abroad while the application is pending, such as a few weeks of vacation, do NOT, not alone, trigger RQ-related non-routine processing . . . the important thing is to NOT miss any scheduled events or fail to timely respond to any requests (such as a Finger Print request).
Living abroad after applying is different, although the main risk is still logistical (the risk of missing a notice or failing to show for a scheduled event, like the test/interview), and a subject addressed in depth in other topics.
My colleague moved over to US before getting AOR. There was no issue. Its some people fear without any basis, nothing more.
Individual experience is ONLY an example of what has happened that time, thus only an example of what MIGHT happen since it has happened. It does NOT definitively indicate what will happen for someone else, let alone what will always happen.
There are, after all, numerous reports about applicants living abroad, after applying, who have been issued full blown RQ.
Which leads to . . .
As long as there is no rule for issuing RQ for absenses, cic cannot issue RQ. They know that its also waste of their time too, not only the candidate's, at the end of the day the officers need to spend more time again to review the file.
We do not know the particular criteria for issuing RQ. That is specifically confidential information.
Based on past information and official accounts of actual cases (as reported in published Federal Court decisions) we have a good idea what SOME of the criteria are . . . but how that criteria is applied is not known. For example, we know that a certain number of discrepancies between the Presence Calculation and other information (such as the CBSA travel history) will trigger RQ-related requests . . . we do not know what extent of discrepancies will trigger RQ or to what extent other factors are considered in making the decision to issue RQ. That said, it is easy enough to apprehend that the more or bigger the discrepancy, the bigger the RISK of RQ.
As I noted, we do have some past information which gives us some knowledge about RQ triggers. There was a leak of the criteria in 2012, a widely shared copy of the File Requirements Checklist (which is supposed to be confidential, and does NOT even become part of the Certified Record when there is an appeal), so we do know what the criteria was in 2012, which was specifically listed in the FRQ. Moreover, I and others did access to information requests around that time and obtained internal CIC memos and communications which revealed some additional information about
Reasons-to-Question-Residency (that is, criteria for issuing RQ). Indeed, the latter revealed modifications to how the criteria was applied. For example, for much of 2012 ANY period of unemployment or self-employment triggered RQ. By early 2013, periods of unemployment or self-employment were still considered but did not automatically, alone, trigger RQ. Obviously, there have been further changes since then.
Prior to 2012, the
Reasons-to-Question-Residency were public information included in an appendix to the Operational Manual CP-5 Residence. This was initially an Operational Bulletin issued by a Liberal government nearly a decade earlier, before the Harper Conservative government. That list of criteria did specifically include indications the applicant was living abroad, while the application was pending, as one of the
Reasons-to-Question-Residency (a reason to issue RQ).
This part of your post is simply wrong: "
As long as there is no rule for issuing RQ for absenses, cic cannot issue RQ."
IRCC has policies and practices which guide processing agents and citizenship officers in making decisions about whether to issue RQ-related requests. We know that. We just do not know what the current policies and practices are. This decision-making is NOT restricted by rule.
In particular, IRCC can issue RQ for virtually any reason whatsoever, so long as it is not overtly prohibited discrimination. Thus, for example, IRCC cannot issue RQ because of the applicant's religion. That said, because there is NO restriction on the reasons for issuing RQ, and the decision to issue RQ is NOT subject to any sort of review, it would be extremely difficult to know if religion triggered the request let alone obtain any recourse for that.
IRCC can issue RQ based on the fact that the applicant has extended absences after applying. Whether it will or not. As noted, sometimes living abroad appears to trigger RQ while for others it does not. The implication is that other factors influence this decision making. Applying with a very small margin over the minimum, in conjunction with living abroad, may be what triggers RQ for this or that particular applicant.
We can be confident that the RQ decision making is fact-based and criteria-driven. We are aware of many factors which are undoubtedly considered in this decision making (significant omissions in the Presence Calculation is a big one; anything which suggests reason to doubt the applicant's credibility is another big one).
