Rita80 said:
If a family who applied together for Citizenship, that means 2 applications in one file number, decided to separate the file, that means to have 2 applications with 2 file numbers, how to do that ?
Starting all over is not an option, i.e reapplying for both members is not an option.
If the above is not possible, then how to withdraw one of the applications and to keep the other application active with the current file number ?
--------------------------
CIC may process the other family members’ applications separately, which they of course are not doing, find below;
cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=734&top=5
Separation of files/applications is
discretionary. IRCC (formerly CIC) may grant a request to separately process applications made as a family or decline to do so. Generally, but not always, CIC has declined to separate applications if one of the applicants has been issued RQ.
In particular, for applications involving residency issues (pre-June 2015, 3/4 rule applications) or involving reasons to question applicant's account of physical presence (post-June 2015, 4/6 rule applications), generally IRCC (formerly CIC) will
NOT separate the applications. That said, there have been isolated reports, over the course of the last several years, of instances in which CIC did separate the applications even though RQ was involved. Ironically, in one of these instances the RQ'd applicant was then scheduled for the oath
before the other, non-RQ'd applicant (per the applicants' requests, however, the RQ'd applicant then agreed to wait until the other was scheduled for the oath so they could take the oath together).
As I understand it, one applicant can withdraw his or her application (procedure and form linked by
HighFive above), allowing the other's to continue to be processed. How this unfolds in practice I have not seen reported much.
Note:
AbdulIBX's situation is different. As I understand it, this was a post June 11, 2015 application, and the mistake in the
physical presence calculation rendered
AbdulIBX NOT eligible, on the face of the application, whereas the other family member was ostensibly eligible. Thus, separation of the applications with withdrawal/rejection of the ineligible applicant constituted the obviously appropriate action for IRCC to take.
If, on the other hand, the applicant's account of presence was being questioned, it would be unusual to split/separate the applications.
There are some older Operational Bulletins which describe CIC's approach
before the Bill C-24 changes; while most of this information is no longer relevant (since, for example, applicants are no longer held up waiting for a Citizenship Judge hearing for language or knowledge of Canada testing; IRCC now has authority and will deny the application based on not meeting language or knowledge of Canada requirements without a referral to a CJ) and these OBs have in fact "expired," these OBs do reflect CIC/IRCC general policy to
NOT split where there are residency issues for any client in the file. While I am not certain, this is most likely still the policy. With exceptions. Or, as CIC/IRCC tend to describe it:
on a-case-by-case basis.
See:
Operational Bulletin 529-A "File Splitting for Applicants Who Require a Hearing"
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2013/ob529A.asp
Operational Bulletin 529 "File Splitting for Applicants Who Require a Hearing"
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2013/ob529.asp
Some general observations; my sense:
The following is
NOT advice, but rather some general observations based on my sense of how the process works; what an applicant should do is always a personal judgment to be made by the individual taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, and when in doubt, consultation with a reputable, experienced lawyer is recommended:
If one applicant clearly does not meet the qualifications, that applicant probably should withdraw. There is no point, after all, to further processing. I am not sure how this actually unfolds where there is a joint application in process, but as the
AbdulIBX report suggests, this is probably the appropriate course of action. The difference is that for
AbdulIBX the one applicant was clearly not qualified on the face of the application; where the applicant can discern he or she is not qualified, even if this is not apparent on the face of the application (and thus IRCC cannot summarily deny that applicant), the applicant needs to take the initiative to request the withdrawal.
If both/all applicants are qualified (at least claim to be qualified), but there is a problem with one likely to result in a lengthy delay in processing time, make a formal
written request for the applications to be split. Send to local office if it is known that the file is in the local office. Explain reasons. Both (all) applicants should sign (i.e. children over 14 included in application should also sign the request). Whether or not this will actually result in the separation of the applicants is totally at the discretion of IRCC. As others have observed, IRCC may or may not promptly respond to the request (in any event, typically clearances must be updated before there is a decision on the request). If there is RQ or even CIT 0520, odds are against the applications being split.
If the reason separating the files is requested is due to a breakdown in the relationship, similarly make a written request, explain the reasons. Better odds of this succeeding if no residency or presence issues are involved.
Note, IRCC still in transition:
This is no small matter. Under Conservative leadership, the bureaucracy at CIC slid deeper and deeper into a morass of incoherent and inconsistent policies and practices (OB 407 was the biggest disaster, almost bringing CIC to standstill in 2012 and early 2013), and then made sweeping changes in the law (Bill C-24), many aspects of which were ill conceived. This is the bureaucracy the Liberal government inherited just a number of months ago. There is much to fix. Much to sort out. Much to better organize. And much to outright change, and indeed Bill C-6 proposes to make some significant changes.
A huge part of the mess created over the course of nine years under Conservative leadership is rooted in their disregard for the importance of communicating policy and practice to the public. In the last several months IRCC has been scrambling to update the IRCC website, to bring the information up-to-date, but this is a huge, huge task, made more complicated and difficult because of the extent to which the policies and practices themselves are a problematic mess in need of sorting out and fixing.
It is impossible to forecast how much better the Liberals will be about communicating to the public, to clients. Transparency is not a big priority despite all the rhetorical homage paid to it (albeit it appears likely the Liberals will be more transparent than the Conservatives, but that is like comparing visibility through a brick wall).
But for now, when things get off the routine, mainstream track in processing, clients are saddled with navigating their way through a complex labyrinth with minimal guideposts to show the way.
