sudanese one said:
I got a letter from the local office requesting more documents, colored copies of passport, rental agreement and tax assessment , however there is no form as many people usually get CIT 0520 form.
I wonder it does make difference. :
Probably no reason to worry about this. The officer reviewing your file probably wants to clarify or verify some particular aspects of your case. If you follow the instructions and submit the requested documents, that will probably resolve whatever led the officer to make the request and your case will most likely proceed without significant delays.
Obviously, if you have a short fall in actual presence (less than 1095 days actual presence), or your documentation falls short (gap in showing rental or ownership of residence for time in Canada, for example), or the documentation otherwise illuminates an inconsistency or discrepancy (passport stamp inconsistent with what is in your travel declarations for example), that would lead to additional scrutiny, and potential problems or delays. But if your response is complete and verifies the information already submitted, this should not be a problem.
Why no CIT 0520?
I do not know.
It is difficult to identify what differences, if any, this has versus a similar request made using CIT 0520. This sort of particular request, without receiving either CIT 0520 or CIT 0171 (the latter being the full blown RQ form), has not been reported much at all for more than three or four years. I wonder, but it really is just
wondering (as in I do not know and there is little other information to turn to), if the absence of the CIT 0520 was a mistake (such as an oversight) or if there has been some policy and practice changes implemented in the local office.
Mostly: follow the instructions in the communication you received.
That is, mostly do your best to provide the documents specifically requested. No need to go beyond that. Do
not enlarge or otherwise make copies which are not nearly exact (a copy is a
copy, and an enlargement is an enlargement).
You might try to telephone the call centre and push to get the representative to examine your actual file, to confirm that it show you were sent
only the specific request and not an additional form, such as the CIT 0520. Probably no need to do this unless the request appears to be in some way incomplete, or referring to some other form.
Again, mostly
follow the instructions. At this time there is NO need to submit additional documents beyond those requested.
Some history:
This was very common before 2012. Then in 2012/2013 CIC issued RQ (CIT 0171) to virtually any applicant for whom additional information was being requested, and internal policy overtly discouraged making specific requests except RQ. Then in 2014 (may have actually begun in 2013, not sure of the transition for this), recognizing the extent to which RQs were overwhelming the system unnecessarily, and that in many, many cases a few particular documents could readily resolve concerns or questions, CIC implemented the CIT 0520 to make specific requests for such documents. This essentially formalized a common practice before OB 407 was issued in April 2012.
It would not be surprising if the Liberals were already untangling a lot of the practices and policies implemented during Harper's government, especially those implemented when Jason Kenney was Minister of CIC (at the reins during the implementation of the brutally draconian RQ policy in 2012), including eliminating some of the formalities imposed by the Conservative government. But one report, such as yours, is not nearly enough evidence to draw conclusions from. It will be interesting to see whether other applicants report similarly going forward.
Canadiandesi2006 said:
Lucky you did'nt get the CIT 0520 form, ie full fledged Residency Questionnaire, that categorizes your application as a Non-Routine and takes over 36 months of processing.
Apparently, the CIC need additional proof to verify you were indeed physically living in the country as you had claimed in the application.
If possible submit additional proofs to clear their doubts - submit copies of utility bills (electricity, cell) credit cards statements, health records from provincial ministry and employment records.....etc.
Consider taking slightly enlarged color copies of passport, rental agreement and download from CRA website the tax assessments for previous years (you need sign up on CRA site).
May I respectfully suggest taking a breath and tempering what you post, making an effort to be more well informed before posting?
I expect others, like me, largely overlook the extent to which you sometimes post erroneous information. But at times you are posting blatantly inaccurate information. I offer the following not for criticism but illustration, hoping you will approach these matters at least a little more judiciously going forward.
For example:
"Lucky you did'nt get the CIT 0520 form, ie full fledged Residency Questionnaire, that categorizes your application as a Non-Routine and takes over 36 months of processing."
No, the full blown Residency Questionnaire is CIT 0171.
Yes, CIT 0520, as well as CIT 0171, but even a Fingerprint Request, make the application
non-routine, but even a year ago when CIC was still bogged down with a huge backlog (created in large part due to the brutally draconian RQ policy implemented in 2012)
MOST non-routine applications were taking less than 36 months. Only twenty percent were taking 36 plus months.
Going forward, even those issued full-blown RQ are likely to be processed in way less than 36 months.
Moreover, what it is that makes the application non-routine matters. Some reasons why the application is non-routine result in only minimal delays (many times FP requests only result in minimal delays), some other reasons causing much longer delays. While RQ probably has caused the longest delays for the largest number of long-delayed applicants, security concerns tend to cause the longest delays (but affect relatively few in number).
Reports by applicants issued specific document requests indicate widely varying timelines, from just a few months added to the processing, to many months. And of course, some applicants getting a specific documents request later are further given RQ (obviously their response to the specific requests did not resolve the concern or question leading to the request).
Indeed, generally there is reason to be optimistic about what is an
informal request for specific documents (that is, a request not using either CIT 0520 or CIT 0171). But it is not for sure this was an informal request rather than a mistake (in failing to use CIT 0520 to make the request). Either way, however, a number of participants have reported receiving similar requests (albeit with the CIT 0520) and relatively soon being scheduled for the oath. The response to the requests, by these applicants, clearly did resolve whatever concern or question led to the requests.
For another example:
"If possible submit additional proofs to clear their doubts - submit copies of utility bills (electricity, cell) credit cards statements, health records from provincial ministry and employment records.....etc.
Whether to
NOT follow the instructions, but rather to also send in additional documents, is a personal judgment call. Generally, however, when in doubt follow the instructions, and otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
In following multiple forums for many years, I have yet to see a single confirmation that including extra information or documentation made a positive difference in a citizenship application. There are a few reports suggesting that
possibly some additional documents helped (mine own included, as I did submit CRA Notices of Assessment with my original application . . . but there is no way to know that helped at all), but many reports that it definitely did not help (including applicants who submitted the equivalent of a RQ response and then got RQ).
Including additional information or documentation to clarify or explain something is distinguishable. And many times prudent. Submitting alternative documents if the requested documents are not available might help and thus be advisable, in appropriate situations.
Generally, however, absent a very definite reason to do otherwise, following the instructions is the best course of action.
Note: with bureaucracies generally it is usually best to give what is requested and no more. Bureaucracies work systematically. Anything outside the system's parameters risks tipping the process off the rails.
For another example:
"Consider taking slightly enlarged color copies . . ."
No. If the request is for a copy, it should be a copy. It needs to be legible, that is true, and if the
copy itself is not legible, but an enlargement is legible, sure, consider
additionally submitting the enlargement . . . not as the copy requested, but as an additional document. This falls into the category of submitting something which clarifies or explains, and in some manner the enlarged version should be identified as such including why (simple as "enlarged copy of passport page 11 to legibly show stamp date" or such).
To be clear: applicants have had their citizenship application returned due to submitting an enlarged passport photo page, reason "illegible" even though the enlargement was in fact more legible . . . but since it is an enlargement, it is not a "copy."
Photocopiers typically do not make an exact copy, but the margin of difference is minuscule. I do not know what parameters will tip the scales to make a copy unacceptable, as a copy, but here again, the best approach is to
follow the instructions.
Using a scanner and printing the scanned image from a digital file can sometimes be problematic in this regard. Straight photo-copy works best.
