progolfers

Hi Experts,

Is there any truth or detail in the Citizenship law that expects
immigrants to "establish" oneself ? My take from the reading of the
new law is that as long as you maintain 1095 requirement you will be
granted citizenship as long as criminal etc is all in the clear ?

the question is DOES the law say you have to establish yourself and is
there a provision to deny someone if they do not satisfy a judge that
they have "established" themselves ?




I copied this post from another forum......


Journey to Citizenship - a bitter or sweet experience?
I applied for citizenship in feb2007 after the required 1095 days of
physical presence. I received the letter for giving the test in July
2007.When I arrived at the Mississauga centre, I was in for a rude
shock. The officer asked me if I knew to speak English .When I
answered in the affirmative, she looked at my application and told me
that I had to meet with the judge as I was out of Canada for six
months after my arrival in 2003.I consider myself quite methodical and
was sure nothing was wrong with my application. I tried explaining to
the officer in vain. She didn't ask for any documents and asked me to
leave the room as she was busy. I felt humiliated when the officer
asked me to leave the place and felt discriminated. After speaking
with the supervisor I was allowed to write the test which I completed
successfully. I once again went through all the citizenship rules for
applying and found no reason why I had to meet with the judge.
I talked to the call centre who advised me to fax for an appointment
with the Mississauga officer. When 2 weeks passed with no result I
decided to go there to personally speak with some officer. Speaking to
a microphone outside on the wall seemed stupid enough, what is worse
is that there was nobody to talk to me. Luckily I received a letter
and a date for the interview with the judge. However I had to fill the
residency Questionnaire and also make tons of photocopies worth about
100$, time off from work and evidence to prove my residency in Canada.
I was happy at least it didn't take much time before I got to meet
with the judge.
I finally met with Judge in Aug 2007, who interviewed me for about a
hour and half. I had to show what I did in Canada for the last three
years- I had to submit employment documents, bank deposits, bills,
credit card accounts, tax summary,T4,T5,Educational certificates,
community involvement .The judge was finally convinced that I was a
potential Canuck in the making! The Judge told me in addition to the
physical presence, one has to also prove his/her establishing ties to
Canada and the interview was done on case to case basis. The judge
credited me for having kept all the necessary documents/receipts right
from the day one in Canada to prove my ties to Canada.
I finally took the oath after a month and became a proud Citizen .....
Or am I?
Some questions are still unanswered as far as I am concerned
Why is one invited to write the test if it did not meet their
undisclosed \"criteria?\"
Why don't they mention all the requirements to become a citizen
including that one should "establish" oneself to show ties to Canada?
If they were so particular about entry/exits why can't they just stamp
in/out in the passports as in other countries?
Thank you for all your wonderful posts which truly helped in getting
valuable info through my ordeal. My advice to people applying for
citizenship is not to apply before 1095 days of physical presence and
also keep all documents right from the day of arrival no matter how
trivial it may seem.

Rich Wales

wrote:

> Is there any truth or detail in the Citizenship law that
> expects immigrants to "establish" oneself? My take from
> the reading of the new law is that as long as you maintain
> 1095 requirement you will be granted citizenship as long
> as criminal etc is all in the clear? the question is DOES
> the law say you have to establish yourself and is there a
> provision to deny someone if they do not satisfy a judge
> that they have "established" themselves ?

Short answer: This report surprises me. I've read about people
who fought in the courts (sometimes successfully) for a ruling
that they had the required amount of "residence in Canada" despite
long absences from the country, but I've never (until now) heard
of someone being challenged regarding residence despite having
spent 1,095 days physically in Canada.

Longer answer:

The letter of the law (the Citizenship Act) currently requires
that an applicant for citizenship must have, "within the four
years immediately preceding the date of his or her application,
accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada".

"Residence" is not explicitly defined in the law. There have
been a few attempts in Parliament during the past decade to
change or rewrite the Citizenship Act to define "residence"
as referring specifically and exclusively to a set number of
days of physical presence in Canada. However, none of these
bills have ever been enacted into law. AFAIK, the 1,095-day
physical presence rule is simply a rule-of-thumb interpretation
of the law by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

There have been some Federal Court decisions that have allowed
applicants to become citizens despite having spent considerable
amounts of time outside Canada, on the grounds that they had
clearly established themselves in the country and were entitled
to count all of their post-landing time (including time spent
abroad) as "residence". But these cases have been rare.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has, in recent years, taken
the view that residence normally equates to physical presence.
It is possible to get accepted for citizenship without 1,095 days
of literal, physical presence in Canada, but this usually requires
convincing an immigration judge, and it's generally not worth it,
because the amount of extra time involved is usually going to be
far more than if the applicant had simply waited till he had the
full 1,095 days of physical presence.

I must say that I've never heard of a case (before this one) where
someone who did have 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada was
challenged over whether they had truly "established" themselves
in Canada. If this applicant had been turned down, I could easily
see it becoming a court fight, and although I'm not totally sure
which way it would be judged, I would assume it's more likely that
a court would say that 1,095 days in Canada is enough to establish
"residence". But that's just my opinion.

Rich Wales http://www.richw.org
*NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.