Unreasonable Residence Questionnaire

[saddened]

I took my test today (studied hard and scored 100%) and was afterwards given a Residence Questionnaire by the officer who interviewed me. During this interview, the official aggressively questioned me about entries and exits from Canada not listed in my application. He made them appear as oversights. I unthinkingly apologized. After I left the building with the RQ form in hand, I realized that the entries he had questioned me about had occurred several months prior to the relevant period upon which my 1095 days were counted. I had not included entries from February 2008 because I had filed my application in June 2012.

It is my understanding that nothing before June 2008 was relevant. It actually occurred to me to say this while the officer was interviewing me, but he was so confident I thought I must have been mistaken.

(Perhaps he was annoyed because we were in Montreal and I was coming off like an Anglophone-type at that moment as a result of being too nervous to practice my intermediate-level French. If the consequences were not so severe, I could almost be sympathetic to that. Perhaps he just did the math wrong.)

Still, I went back to the building only to find that official had left for the weekend. His colleague checked my file, heard my protest, but was not impressed.

Here are my questions:
Don't officials need a legitimate reason to serve this form which will delay the entire application process significantly? Filling out the form itself should be no problem since I will simply repeat the same information. But won't the RQ delay my time until oath by 48 months?

I also didn't know what the RQ was earlier today when I took the test. The official told me that the form would help me by helping the judge make a decision. The colleague of the person also said that the form would expedite the process because the judge would have given it to me anyway. But none of this appears to be true.

Rather, this event seems to run against the ethics of an immigration system that has been previously lauded globally for its fairness and transparency. If I am being targeted for a non-reason, I can only imagine what happens for immigrants in worse positions, for whom officials simply don't like the cut of their jib.

Please tell me I'm wrong somehow. My experience with institutions in Montreal has been positive until this.
All best,
Sadness

 

[123sMike]

I was given pre test RQ even though I have competed 1095 plus 2 months.. nothing is fair or unfair..this is the process where they can give you RQ till the oath date.. ;D

 

[farrous13]

I took my test today (studied hard and scored 100%) and was afterwards given a Residence Questionnaire by the officer who interviewed me. During this interview, the official aggressively questioned me about entries and exits from Canada not listed in my application. He made them appear as oversights. I unthinkingly apologized. After I left the building with the RQ form in hand, I realized that the entries he had questioned me about had occurred several months prior to the relevant period upon which my 1095 days were counted. I had not included entries from February 2008 because I had filed my application in June 2012.

It is my understanding that nothing before June 2008 was relevant. It actually occurred to me to say this while the officer was interviewing me, but he was so confident I thought I must have been mistaken.

(Perhaps he was annoyed because we were in Montreal and I was coming off like an Anglophone-type at that moment as a result of being too nervous to practice my intermediate-level French. If the consequences were not so severe, I could almost be sympathetic to that. Perhaps he just did the math wrong.)

That's what I am worried about. My French is intermediate. In Montreal, anglophones are always been adjudicated upon by the French system. Keep us posted though.

 

[eileenf]

Look over this list (released through ATIP) of RQ triggers:
http://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com/rq-risk-indicators/

RQ recipients are not told why they get RQ, which for me, is one of the most maddening things about it. It's possible that your RQ was given for a reason other than the dates the officer called into question.

Regarding the language issue, I can't say that it's impossible that your angophone-ishness annoyed the officer, but CIC employees are federal government employees and aren't usually die-hard souvereigntists.

Here are my questions:
Don't officials need a legitimate reason to serve this form which will delay the entire application process significantly?

They need some reason, but they don't need to disclose it to you.

Filling out the form itself should be no problem since I will simply repeat the same information.

Not sure I'd call it "no problem". RQ requires a boatload of documentation and statements spanning one's entire time in Canada (arrival to present day).

But won't the RQ delay my time until oath by 48 months?

The CIC is currently disavowing that previous timeline. But no one can say how long RQ processing takes.

I know it sucks.

 

[Msafiri]

saddened,

So the officer asked you about undeclared entries/ exits prior to the 4 year qualifying period (QF) and you did not pick up on this at interview? It seems there was a credibility issue in his mind based on your travel pattern and there were doubts as to your travel history. But this on its own is not enough if it was pre the 4 year QP so there were likely other triggers based on the triage criteria...are you self employed or employed? If employed is it full time for a 'reputable' organization read not a mom and pop set up? Do you have a provable 1095 days of physical presence? Have you been unemployed with any travel in the 4 year QP? Any US travel or US status? How did you attain PR? The question technique and the nature of your response are an added factor - it may be you appeared evasive rightly or wrongly based on the officers experience.

I'm in no way siding with CIC but its easy for RQd applicants to take personal slight and your comment about an anglophone bias somewhat exhibits this...so if a french speaking applicant applies from say BC or Ontario then gets RQd at local office interview would it be likely on the basis of his/her being francophone? However my take is that with the increased inventory and an anti fraud/ residency regime officers don't have the time or inclination to follow up/ question you in detail at interview (they may be processing 100 applicants on the day) and its regrettably more effective for them and in their mind for the process to issue you an RQ.

Get your GCMS notes in 6-8 weeks it may show the RQ reason. If you can prove your 1095 days then in the end you will get approval...delays are primarily if you are referred to a Citizenship Judge for a full hearing but with your perfect test score it will likely be a paper review i.e. CIC recommend Judge to approve which is faster than a full hearing since there isn't a scheduling issue.

 

[saddened]

To all who responded:
Thank you so much for all of your help and support.
I don't know if I can address everything raised.

Msafiri: I'm not sure whether I'm recommended for an interview or not. The officer filed my exam away and complained that it must have been too easy if I scored 100. There might have been other issues but I definitely do have my 1095 days of residence. I am also from the US, and do go down there to visit family.

Eileenf: I took a look at the form briefly and it looked to me like the only docs I would need were travel records, addresses, leases and taxes. It seems like the other records weren't relevant to me. But I'm worried now because it seems like the applicant gets asked to be accountable for even that which is irrelevant.

I want to address more of this but I'm buried under a pile of responsibilities at the moment, with this form now on top of it.
All best,
saddened

 

[EasyRider]

Eileenf: I took a look at the form briefly and it looked to me like the only docs I would need were travel records, addresses, leases and taxes. It seems like the other records weren't relevant to me. But I'm worried now because it seems like the applicant gets asked to be accountable for even that which is irrelevant.

The list of docs in RQ is a recommendation only for a start. You'd have to convince a stranger that you've been physically present in Canada for >1,095 days.

It works like this:

1) your declared absence dates must be confirmed with travel documents first (passport stamps/visas, CBSA/US CBP records of movement, tickets/boarding passes, itineraries and reservations). It's better not to mix up or have any credibility issues here. Also, CIC never assumes that travel documents are 100% complete and accurate and reflect all absences.

2) then for the supposed periods of presence you'd have to prove that you've been physically present with documents indicating activity in Canada such as related to work, attending school or other organizations, rent, doctor visits, bill payments, etc. If you have a good proof, your case will be rather easily approved.

The 2nd part is tricky in my opinion. For instance, I've had a friend who was remunerated by a company and rented in one country, but was physically living and working in another country for a long time just because the company transferred him to another country and was paying for accommodation there. So, merely employment and rent/home ownership documents may not be enough to prove presence, depends on a concrete situation of course.

 

[SenoritaBella]

Sorry to hear this happened to you. While it can't be proven whether being an Anglophone was a factor, I would recommend practising your French a little bit, even if all you can say is hello. Then carry on in English.

An officer has discretion to ask for more information if deemed necessary and this may include even years outside the 4-year period.

 

[Annasstazz]

By law CIC is required to offer its services in English and French to applicants. Being an anglophone applicant in a francophone province has nothing to do with how an applicant is interviewed. The interview occurs under CIC's jurisdiction. That is, it occurs under federal and not provincial jurisdiction.

 

[saddened]

Thanks again for all your comments.

My lawyer has advised me that the RQ is the new standard, and is issued in almost all cases now. I read that it was at 50% for Quebec, but he thinks it is even higher, and increasing its regularity.

 

[eileenf]

My lawyer has advised me that the RQ is the new standard, and is issued in almost all cases now. I read that it was at 50% for Quebec, but he thinks it is even higher, and increasing its regularity.

According to CIC statistics released through ATIP request, there's about a 20% RQ rate since May 2012.
residencequestionnaire.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/rq_stats_apr2013.pdf

 

[farrous13]

Quite frankly I believe that Lawyers know as much as we do. Nothing more. I mean yes the law they know (I give you that), but they have no inside connections to the CIC whatsoever (even if they claim so). They can help by legalizing papers and word letters that reference the law.

As for QC and the 50%. I think that's a random number. From what I hear and the people I know, almost every single person in Montreal is getting an RQ (as per my post in the MAY 2013 thread). I just don't know why. I don't understand CIC's concept of waiting 1 year from the processing date to issue an RQ. It's a waste of time. I believe the RQ should be a standard.

Thanks again for all your comments.

My lawyer has advised me that the RQ is the new standard, and is issued in almost all cases now. I read that it was at 50% for Quebec, but he thinks it is even higher, and increasing its regularity.

 

[EasyRider]

I collect Montreal timelines and it's not 50% or anything like that, even though RQ'ed people more likely to come to forums like this and skew impression with number of their reports.