The Citizenship File and the Undisclosed Absence
A RCIC is preparing a citizenship grant application for a client, Priya, who is a permanent resident. Priya provides a travel history showing 1,095 days of physical presence in the 5-year period, with a 14-day trip abroad that she says she 'forgot' on an earlier draft. The RCIC's file contains Priya's signed declaration from an earlier permanent residence application listing a different absence. The RCIC also discovers that Priya's permanent residence card expired 8 months ago and she has not renewed it. The application deadline Priya set is 10 days away because she wants to vote in an upcoming election. The RCIC's practice has no written file-retention or conflict-check policy, and the RCIC is also Priya's cousin.
1. Identify the practice-management and professional-conduct issues in this file.
Read the worked answer
Several issues converge.
1. Accuracy of the presence calculation. The 1,095-day figure depends on the travel history. A 'forgotten' 14-day trip and a conflicting absence in an earlier signed declaration mean the RCIC cannot rely on the client's summary. The RCIC must reconcile the records before signing off on any presence calculation, because a citizenship application is made on the applicant's declaration and inaccuracies can have serious consequences.
2. The earlier declaration. The RCIC holds a document that may contradict the current account. The RCIC should raise it with Priya, seek an explanation, and not paper over the inconsistency. If the earlier declaration was wrong, that needs to be addressed candidly; the RCIC should not help construct a narrative that hides it.
3. Expired PR card. An expired card does not by itself end permanent residence, but it affects travel and identification and signals that Priya's documents are not in order. The RCIC should advise on renewal and on whether the citizenship application can proceed without it.
4. Conflict of interest. Representing a cousin is not prohibited, but it requires a conflict check and disclosure. The RCIC's lack of any written conflict-check policy makes this worse, because there is no record that the risk was considered.
5. File management. No written retention policy means the RCIC cannot show what was received, when, and from whom. In a file with inconsistent declarations, that is a serious gap.
6. Deadline pressure. The 10-day deadline is driven by a desire to vote, which is not a legal requirement for filing and should not override accuracy.
2. Priya insists on filing in 10 days. Explain how the RCIC should proceed, including what must be fixed in the practice before the file is submitted.
Read the worked answer
The RCIC should separate what can be fixed in 10 days from what cannot, and should not let the election timeline dictate the filing.
On the file.
- Reconcile the travel history against independent records (entry/exit records, stamps, tickets) before any presence calculation is finalized.
- Raise the conflicting earlier declaration with Priya, get a written explanation, and determine whether a correction or disclosure is needed.
- Advise on the expired PR card and its implications; do not assume it is irrelevant.
- If the file cannot be made accurate in 10 days, say so and recommend filing when it is accurate. A rushed, inaccurate application is worse than a later accurate one. Explain the consequences of inaccurate declarations.
On the practice.
- Adopt a written conflict-check procedure and document the cousin relationship and any mitigation.
- Adopt a written file-retention and record-keeping policy, and apply it to this file immediately so the record is complete going forward.
- Confirm the retainer in writing, including the scope and the family relationship.
On the deadline. Explain that the election is a personal goal, not a legal deadline, and that the RCIC cannot certify accuracy the RCIC does not have. Document the advice and the client's decision.
Tone. The model answer should show the RCIC fixing the practice gaps as part of the file, not as an afterthought, because the exam tests whether the licensee recognizes that poor file management is itself a conduct risk.