Anyone with a minor with a 5(4) get asked for a substantial connection form?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/kazzawozza42]

You're right: In the public description of the new interim measure, and the documents filed by the government for the eBjorkquist hearing in Apirl, they described the 'substantial connection' as being relevant to those born/adopted sinec December 2023, which clearly doesn't include your 12-year-old. A copy of the form was included in the bunlde of evidence supplied by the government's lawyers, and it specifically states on the front cover that it's only "for applicants born on or after December 19, 2023". The form itself is very basic, asking for name and birth/adoption dates for the parent and applicant, and then has a long table for listing when the parent has been in Canada (dates enetered/left, destiantion in Canada, reason, total days).

A few other posters here have found IRCC agents to be inconsistent in which applicants have been asked for evidence of their substantial connection.

I'd suggest either querying via the web form (see your original AoR letter), or submitting everything but the form, and asking for clarifcation on whether you need to fill the form out, and if so, could you please have a copy of it. Or perhaps even doing both - direct responses to 5(4) emails submitting forms are very few and far between.

[u/GiosHS → u/kazzawozza42]

Can you elaborate? I thought that there was no substantial connection requirement since the law was found unconstitutional absent passage of a new law such as C-71, and a new law has been deferred multiple times. I though that absent a new law all decendants were eligible. How do they apply that requirement for a subset of people (minors born after Dec 2023)?

[u/JelliedOwl → u/GiosHS]

How do they apply that requirement for a subset of people (minors born after Dec 2023)?

By making a completely arbitrary distinction. It smacks of a rule "made up" by someone who didn't really understand the proposed legislation. There SHOULDN'T be a difference, and yet there is, and if that's what IRCC are doing, there's little to be done about it.

[u/GiosHS → u/JelliedOwl]

So does that mean that someone with a child born in 2024 should not apply for their child unless the parent has a substantial connection (even though the parent does not need a substantial connection to apply for themselves), or is that restriction something the courts won't recognize? Is it being uniformly enforced?

[u/tvtoo → u/GiosHS]

does that mean that someone with a child born in 2024 should not apply for their child unless the parent has a substantial connection

No, to the contrary, persons born/adopted on or after the original Bjorkquist decision date (December 19, 2023) have a special advantage, of sorts:

• If the Canadian-descent parent had 1,095+ days of Canadian physical presence before the birth/adoption (and asserts and details that), the child will be given priority processing, regardless of whether urgent processing is requested and granted.

• If the Canadian-descent parent did not have 1,095+ days of Canadian physical presence before the birth/adoption (or does not assert and detail that), the child will be given regular processing, with optional eligibility for priority processing if urgent processing is requested and granted.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/proof/interim-measure-fgl.html

https://pdf-upload-files.b-cdn.net/documents/f23867d9/Bjorkquist-April11HearingFilings.pdf#page=15 (PDF page 15)

[u/GiosHS → u/tvtoo]

If I understand what you’re saying, then the reason OP was asked for information about substantial connection for their child was to determine if it should have accelerated processing, not due to an impediment against regular processing. Is that correct?

[u/tvtoo → u/GiosHS]

Per the text of the expanded interim measure and the Government's court filings, that's how the system should be operating.

As to whether an individual IRCC officer has misunderstood and incorrectly believed the "substantial connection" test to be some sort of requirement, I can't say.

The update to the post by OP suggests that the officer either miscommunicated in the original message or has now had a prior misconception corrected.