+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

NON-ROUTINE APPLICANTS

Canadiann2020

Star Member
Dec 24, 2020
196
41
Lawyer said: "I can not go for mandamus because 2.9 years (33 months) is not enough to start an mandamus."

For grant citizenship applications the passing of time is NEVER enough to establish successful grounds for mandamus. Probably been stated a hundred or three hundred times in this forum alone. Maybe more. So, for sure, it is absolutely true, 33 months in processing "is not enough to [properly sue for] mandamus."

REMINDER: A writ of mandamus is a judicial order to a government official mandating that the official do what the law clearly mandates the official has a duty to do. Since there is no timeline within which the law mandates IRCC grant citizenship, there is no amount of time which will clearly mandate IRCC grant citizenship, and thus, the passage of time alone will NEVER be sufficient grounds for a writ of mandamus.


Lawyer said: "I do not have to call IRCC three times a week . . ."

This part is another FOR-SURE truth. Not three times a month. NOT once every month.

They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. First, that's an American saying, and a lot of American "proverbs" are horse pucky. And these days it is more like the squeaky wheel gets replaced," at best . . . because it is one thing for the wheel to be squeaky because it really needs lubrication and another thing if the noise is about something else. Like something wrong with the wheel.

Like being unreasonably obnoxious. Not sure why there is much of a contingency in this forum favouring not just unreasonable but downright abusive behaviors. But it's here. Loud. Unreasonable. "Noisy" perhaps an understatement. Actually popular in some topics. Does not justify it. Generally, beyond getting attention (which can be a bad thing . . . will get to that), unreasonable noise rarely has a positive impact. Basically it just reveals who the noisemaker is, someone acting badly. Which leads to . . .

Lawyer said: ". . . that will upset them and make the process longer . . . . they are punching me because I bothered them."

It is interesting that responses immediately focused on improper retribution or discrimination.

For those who are interested in figuring out how things actually work, it usually (not always) helps to approach with the assumption that things work within a relative range of how they are supposed to work (not so efficiently, often, no where near perfectly, with some bumps in the road). Retribution would be improper. Probably a good place to start is to assume that this is not about government officials doing something improper or a lawyer cavalierly confessing that is the government's modus operandi. Contrary to the trollesque depictions, no, generally the modus operandi of government officials is not to engage in improper behavior. Oh sure, it happens, too often. But it is not the rule, not the general way things are done, not close. And those who persist in railing about IRCC officials acting with mal intent are almost always more about making disruptive noise than engaging in a discussion aimed at sorting out how things actually work or how individual applicants can best navigate their way.

One could quibble with the words, the terms the lawyer uses. But I suspect those reported here are not verbatim. Lawyers are usually better with words than these. "Upset them," for example, that is not how most jurists, lawyers, professionals, are likely to frame things. And "punching" even less so.

But regardless the actual words employed, assuming the lawyer is making an effort to EXPLAIN things, it should not be all that difficult sorting these statements out in the context of real world practical consequences.

As I noted, it was the observation about how unreasonably obnoxious it is for an applicant to repeatedly make utterly unnecessary inquiries, that leads to the consequences part of this. Make no mistake, this is acting badly. Sure, it is within a person's "rights," but it is nonetheless acting badly.

If the context was personal, sure, one person acting badly can very easily cause someone respond with retribution. But bureaucracies are notoriously NOT personal.

In contrast, what is written very large into the handling of information by immigration officials is a very critical if not suspicious or skeptical approach to weighing things. If the applicant is acting badly, the question is obvious: WHY? why is this applicant behaving so badly, so unreasonably? What is the applicant hiding? What has the applicant done? What's the real story?

Repeated inquiries for no good reason are almost bound to raise questions. Questions mean the file going from one queue, the routine queue, into another non-routine queue where a processing agent can further examine things.

I do not know, not at all, how many calls or webform inquiries or ATIP requests will trigger elevated scrutiny. Probably does not even happen for many applicants who nonetheless go well over the line in making unreasonably frequent inquiries. But it is kind of "duh" that that is the RISK. In whatever language the lawyer describes it. And I'd guess that three times a week, odds are good that is well past the tipping point.


More Re Mandamus and Time:

REMINDER
(again): A writ of mandamus is a judicial order to a government official mandating that the official do what the law clearly mandates the official has a duty to do. Since there is no timeline within which the law mandates IRCC grant citizenship, there is no amount of time which will clearly mandate IRCC grant citizenship, and thus, the passage of time alone will NEVER be sufficient grounds for a writ of mandamus.

This is not to say time is irrelevant. It can be an important factor in weighing other elements of the case for asserting the Minister has failed to do something the law clearly mandates the Minister do. And there is an *argument* (tends to not carry nearly so much weight as some think it warrants) that the passage of a certain amount of time can amount to a de facto decision denying the application, which would be contrary to law for an applicant who meets the qualifications.

In the best of times, in the most normal processing milieu, this is nonetheless a very tough argument to make convincingly. THESE ARE NOT NORMAL TIMES. Timelines for processing are off the charts.

An Aside: Most lawyers are used to dealing with unreasonable clients. Goes with the territory. That said, lawyers are like donkeys. Carrots, sweets even, tend to stir some action more than sticks. And of course lawyers are going to be extra wary dealing with an obviously unreasonable client. Which leads to the other leg in the three-legged stool on which lawyers will sit a case (money being the most obvious leg of this stool), a case in which the lawyer can be successful. Lawyers tend to be an arrogant lot, pretentious, pompous even, so they do not like to lose. Sure, money can sometimes make up two of the stool's legs. Which can, for example, make up for being an unreasonable person. But losing cases tends to cost money, cost clients, hurt the lawyer's reputation.

Otherwise, overall, my guess is that to the extent the lawyer's language may have been a bit intemperate, the lawyer was simply trying to say smarten up, go about this more reasonably.
I really appreciate your detailed response to almost all of the queries here on this forum but in my opinion if you could be little short and sweet with your replies you be more effective and reach a vast majority of people on this forum.
No disrespect intented here...
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,435
3,182
. . . in my opinion if you could be little short and sweet with your replies you be more effective and reach a vast majority of people on this forum.
Perhaps. But I do the best I can do. I am no expert. I am typically addressing more complicated aspects of the process, often dealing with thorny tangents, which often also tend to be clouded by confusion, misunderstanding, or outright misinformation.

The lawyer quoted, for example, basically stated two propositions, short at least, even if not so sweet:
-- 2.9 years "is not enough" to get a Writ of Mandamus, and​
-- better to stop bugging IRCC with unnecessary requests​

True and good advice.

The response: "Baseless" was one response. Time to get a new lawyer was another.

This dichotomy plays again and again here, like a broken record. Like so many "discussions" in all sorts of venues these days, the trend and tendency is to take sides. One side, sometimes both, largely in disregard of the truth.

I make an effort to illuminate the reasons and rationale, to provide information which can enable those who want to know how to better evaluate the propositions, to figure out how things work and how that affects their own situations, their own cases. That tends to get weedy. And the combination of a weedy subject and wordy writer (yes, I tend to be wordy, one of my many flaws) makes for a long read. But that's the best I got.

Note that just yesterday alone the subject of mandamus took center stage in at least three citizenship topics (one apparently has been deleted), all oriented to talking about mandamus as a remedy for how long the process is taking. Two of those discussions bring up a recent Federal Court decision that is NOT about processing citizenship applications, focused on the ruling in that decision there was an "unreasonable delay" in processing a refugee PR application, warranting the grant of a Writ of Mandamus. The most common take-away, the highlights, focused on the length of the delay, overlooking or failing to understand that the length of the delay was merely a factor, and not the key factor.

The nature of the Minister's decision-making, most notably the nature and scope of the Minister's discretion, at issue in the FC ruling by Justice Ahmed in regards to the Abdulrhman Taskia PR application (see https://canlii.ca/t/jgv01 ), is different from the Minister's decision-making and discretion in processing a grant citizenship application. This alone dilutes if not precludes any direct application of Justice Ahmed's conclusions to citizenship applications. Explaining that is complicated. I do not intend to explain it here, now, but will say there are a number of older Mandamus cases cited in Justice Ahmed's decision which offer a detailed outline of the key elements in a Mandamus case and how, in particular, the type of discretion involved can make a big difference in what influence the length of a delay might have. There is no way to even describe this let alone explain it sufficiently to document how it works without, well, going long. Especially for me.

And that is just one aspect of the Taskia case which makes drawing any conclusions about the availability of Mandamus in citizenship application processing complicated, weedy, prone to the long read. Others include the very limited role that Federal Court decisions have in establishing precedent. (Takes a decision at least at the Federal Court of Appeal level to formally establish precedent in law governing grant citizenship and in regards to many if not most immigration issues.)

And mostly there is the fact that length of time itself does not determine what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable," or as Justice Ahmed phrased it "There is no uniform length of time for the limit of what is reasonable."

As I noted in my previous post, "This is not to say time is irrelevant. It can be an important factor in weighing other elements of the case for asserting the Minister has failed to do something the law clearly mandates the Minister do."

For the continuing discussion about the possibility of mandamus relief because how long the process is taking, trying to explain just how time factors into the calculation, and sufficiently recognizing the extent to which it is NOT about how long it has been, that gets even more complicated.

The short answer is that, for the vast majority of applicants, it is best to forget seeking mandamus just because it has been two going on three years, or even more. It is an answer that has been posted here dozens if not hundreds of times. Yet the discussion goes on. Just this morning, the same individual who reported the lawyer saying 33 months is not a basis for getting mandamus, who appeared to get it, to get that what the lawyer said is indeed how it is, how it works, that same individual has just this morning reported talking to additional lawyers . . . AND getting the same answer. Reporting this in one of those ongoing discussions here about the remedy of mandamus for citizenship application delays. The beat goes on.

So I make an effort to explain things in more depth, hoping it helps some even if the ongoing discussion in the forum tends to remain focused on sound bites people want to hear rather than get a good grasp of how things really do work.

For those actually interested, the Abdulrhman Taskia case (see https://canlii.ca/t/jgv01 ) itself is way more informative than the Star article about it, and there are some other decisions cited in the Taskia decision which offer a lot more context and analysis.
 

wink

Hero Member
May 25, 2021
733
361
I don't understand why there is no fixed timeline in the law to process the applications. Power should be given to reject or approve, but not for sitting on it. Maximum timeline should be defined upfront. Let that be even five years, but there is should be one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harirajmohan

bluesami

Hero Member
Jan 22, 2020
322
155
I don't understand why there is no fixed timeline in the law to process the applications. Power should be given to reject or approve, but not for sitting on it. Maximum timeline should be defined upfront. Let that be even five years, but there is should be one.
Because they do not care about me or you, they do not even care about my time or yours.

2 weeks ago I called the IRCC and told the agent I have been waiting since NOV2018, she said that is not our problem, your file is non-routine and there is no timeline ;)
 
  • Wow
Reactions: harirajmohan

123123321

Star Member
Aug 6, 2021
55
65
I don't understand why there is no fixed timeline in the law to process the applications. Power should be given to reject or approve, but not for sitting on it. Maximum timeline should be defined upfront. Let that be even five years, but there is should be one.
It seems nobody made petition or went to court with this question.
Personally I would like to receive letter every 6 months after first year of waiting with detailed explanation why process is delayed.
 

Das67

Hero Member
Oct 19, 2019
967
560
It seems nobody made petition or went to court with this question.
Personally I would like to receive letter every 6 months after first year of waiting with detailed explanation why process is delayed.
This is called transparency, that is something IRCC is not good at. Especially when they delay your application for no apparent reason sending you a letter to expose themselves is just shooting their own foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 123123321

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,435
3,182
Because they do not care about me or you, they do not even care about my time or yours.
That is not the reason why there is no fixed timeline in the law. A very high percentage of government functions, including most involving discretionary decision-making by government bureaucracies, have no fixed timeline imposed by the law.

The "they" in your statement is vague. Since you are referring to the lack of a fixed timeline in the law for processing grant citizenship applications, that would seem to be in reference to the Parliament (NOT IRCC), since it is the Parliament which determines what the law is. And in this regard that is about numerous, various Parliaments over nearly a half century, during which the Parliament amended the law governing the grant of citizenship many times and did not introduce or, so far as I have seen in the legislative record, even consider a fixed timeline.

If you meant that IRCC does "not care" about you, well, yeah, duh. It is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does. Among those things that a bureaucracy does NOT do is have feelings.

Again, however, that is not the reason there is no fixed timeline. That is not due to the operational functions of the bureaucracy. It is because Parliament did not adopt a provision of law limiting the timeline . . . pretty much like it has not in regards to many, many other government functions.

It warrants noting, nonetheless, that under the Harper majority government, part of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, that Parliament did amend the citizenship act to specifically limit when CIC/IRCC can suspend the processing of a citizenship application. No one should be thrown off track by this. It was not intended to block or even reduce the extent to which CIC/IRCC suspended processing. It was intended to establish the legitimacy of suspending processing, and was in response to Federal Court decisions ruling that the law (as it was until this change) did not provide for and thus did not allow "suspending" processing. So Harper changed the law to formally allow suspending applications, and that provision is broad enough to accommodate a wide open field of reasons, a tangled tangent of its own, another deep and complicated story.


I don't understand why there is no fixed timeline in the law to process the applications. Power should be given to reject or approve, but not for sitting on it. Maximum timeline should be defined upfront. Let that be even five years, but there is should be one.
It seems nobody made petition or went to court with this question.
There is, indeed, NO fixed or maximum timeline for processing a grant citizenship application. As noted above, this is about what the LAW provides, NOT about decision-making by the total stranger bureaucrats processing citizenship applications.

Actually, over the course of the last couple decades, more than a few applications for a Writ of Mandamus have been made based on the claim the length of time CIC/IRCC was taking to process the citizenship application. There was, in particular, a flurry of such applications in the 2010 to 2013 period, during which the routine timeline dragged to two years with scores and scores of fully qualified applicants enduring three to four year processing timelines.

But the courts have made it clear, there is a big, big difference between what constitutes an "unreasonable delay" (such as that in the Abdulrhman Taskia case; again see https://canlii.ca/t/jgv01 ), VERSUS applications for mandamus based on what applicants were complaining was an unreasonably long processing time.

Many, many, many, complain again and again that the processing timeline is unreasonably long. And it may be. BUT since there is no fixed timeline, there is NO judicial remedy available for this. The courts cannot create law.

What constitutes an "unreasonable delay" is a far, far more complicated subject than the HOW long element. Sure, how long matters, but it is just one factor considered, and is not the key factor.

Leading to . . .

Personally I would like to receive letter every 6 months after first year of waiting with detailed explanation why process is delayed.
This is called transparency, that is something IRCC is not good at. Especially when they delay your application for no apparent reason sending you a letter to expose themselves is just shooting their own foot.
There is a huge difference between a very lengthy processing time line in which the bureaucracy is just plain SLOW, and sometimes extremely slow, VERSUS applications subject to non-routine processing delays.

The vast majority of qualified applicants are not dealing with non-routine delays in processing their applications. There is NOTHING to explain why the process is delayed because the process is NOT delayed. It is just SLOW. Sometime very, very SLOW.

In contrast, somewhat comparable to the Abdulrhman Taskia situation (albeit totally different type of application and decision-making scheme), yes there is a SMALL percentage (which however adds up to a significant number) of applicants whose applications are being held up due to a particular non-routine process. And the main culprit (so to say) is most often a SECURITY issue. Again, this involves a very SMALL percentage of applicants. The vast majority of qualified applicants will NOT encounter any delay in processing their application due to a security clearance delay.

This is an important distinction. Yes, for those affected, this is a problem. And yes, it is readily apparent that IRCC and its partners (not just CSIS but potentially others such as the National Security Screening Division, a branch of the Canada Border Services Agency, which was involved in the Abdulrhman Taskia situation) should be more transparent. BUT THIS has little or nothing to do with the overall very lengthy timelines that scores and scores of applicants are now enduring. For most, there is no lack of transparency. Processing currently is very SLOW. Applications are sitting in queue for very long periods of time. There are probably multiple reasons for this, but obviously the primary one is IRCC's failure to adequately adapt in the wake of the global pandemic, a separate subject, an important subject but that is NOT about processing DELAYS for NON-ROUTINE applications.
 

CaBeaver

Champion Member
Dec 15, 2018
2,941
1,369
I don't understand why there is no fixed timeline in the law to process the applications. Power should be given to reject or approve, but not for sitting on it. Maximum timeline should be defined upfront. Let that be even five years, but there is should be one.
I think there should at least be a normal processing time, after which the applicant is given an explanation why their application is taking more than that. Keeping applicants in the dark is causing a lot of the psychological damage.
 

CherineAmr

Member
Jan 29, 2015
14
2
We consider your application non-routine if:
  • you asked to change your personal information, such as:
    • name
    • sex designation
    • date of birth
  • you missed a:
    • test
    • interview
    • hearing
  • we need you to submit extra documents, like:
    • fingerprints
    • residence documents
  • we asked you to come to another interview or hearing after you attended your interview
We also consider your citizenship application non-routine if you:

Hey
I miscalculated my physical presence in my first application and they only figured it out after I passed my citizenship test. My application was sent to a judge which denied granting my citizenship. I reapplied again in March, would my application be non-routine?
 

bluesami

Hero Member
Jan 22, 2020
322
155
Hey
I miscalculated my physical presence in my first application and they only figured it out after I passed my citizenship test. My application was sent to a judge which denied granting my citizenship. I reapplied again in March, would my application be non-routine?
Did you receive the AOR?
 

jesuscares

Hero Member
Jun 11, 2012
281
39
Category........
CEC
Visa Office......
Ottawa
NOC Code......
2255
App. Filed.......
10-08-2017
AOR Received.
10-08-2017
Med's Done....
10-08-2017
Passport Req..
20-10-2017
VISA ISSUED...
14-11-2017
LANDED..........
23-11-2017
Hey
I miscalculated my physical presence in my first application and they only figured it out after I passed my citizenship test. My application was sent to a judge which denied granting my citizenship. I reapplied again in March, would my application be non-routine?
Was it a case where the new calculation resulted in the application falling below the 1095 day requirement?
 

rajkamalmohanram

VIP Member
Apr 29, 2015
15,803
5,787
Hey
I miscalculated my physical presence in my first application and they only figured it out after I passed my citizenship test. My application was sent to a judge which denied granting my citizenship. I reapplied again in March, would my application be non-routine?
AFAIK, there might be additional scrutiny on your citizenship application this time around since an application was previously rejected for non-compliance.

But you should get your citizenship as long as you meet the requirements now and have truthfully declared everything in the physical presence calculator.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,435
3,182
Hey
I miscalculated my physical presence in my first application and they only figured it out after I passed my citizenship test. My application was sent to a judge which denied granting my citizenship. I reapplied again in March, would my application be non-routine?
The fact that you had a previous application denied does NOT, not automatically make the second (current) application non-routine.

There is an increased risk of elevated scrutiny compared to most applications (as @rajkamalmohanram noted), which increases the risk that the application will encounter some non-routine processing. But all applications are at risk for non-routine processing.

Just the fact that an application encounters some non-routine processing does not mean much. Most non-routine processing is not a big deal, and still within more or less normal or standard processing timelines. The fact that an application encounters non-routine processing does not mean there is a significant issue or problem.

What matters more is what is involved in the *extra* processing, that is, what procedure is involved.

Which leads to the process you went through before. That was a full-blown presence case. That is one of the kinds of non-routine processing which often delays the outcome for a long time in addition to being a demanding process . . . including the procedures involved in the case going to a Citizenship Judge.

As @rajkamalmohanram observes, whether you will now be granted citizenship depends on whether you meet the requirements now, and if you do meet the requirements you should be granted citizenship based on this application.

Generally the fact that a previous application was denied is NOT a reason to deny a later application. And, indeed, the record created by a previous application can sometimes make IRCC's job easier verifying the applicant's information, so sometimes the second application goes more smoothly and faster than for most applications.

There is an exception for applications denied based on misrepresentation, which results in a five year prohibition. This does NOT appear to apply to you.

But there are aspects of your previous case which are not clear. You recently reported:

Hey! I did the SAME exact thing and also passed my citizenship test. my advice is to withdraw your application ASAP. I did not do that despite people advising me to do it and they dragged me for an entire year before refusing my application and then I had to apply again this year. seriously withdraw ASAP
In contrast you posed questions here and engaged in a discussion about being short here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/mistake-on-physical-presence-calculator.636774/ back in October 2019, in which discussion it appears you recognized that being short three days meant the application MUST be denied . . . and yet you appear to have proceeded in that application until it was denied a long time later.

As long as the conclusion of all that was NOT based on misrepresentation, it should NOT cause you a problem this time. I note, for example, you said you acknowledged the error made in that case and it was, you report, a small error but enough to result in you falling short (by three days).

I have the impression, for example, that the Citizenship Judge may have made a decision based on the record, based on your acknowledgement of the error, without there being a hearing with the Judge (if you did have a hearing, it could help us help others if you share some information about what that process was like). If that is how things went that suggests it is not likely any misrepresentation was alleged.

ALL THAT SAID . . . considering the kind of mistake you made in the first application and how that unfolded . . . you might benefit from getting professional assistance. If you are confident you understand things better this time around, you should be OK, no problem. But if you are not confident, getting some professional guidance will not hurt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rajkamalmohanram

SheyiDeji

Full Member
Jun 13, 2021
22
5
Hello, I hope I get some answers here. We got passport request in Feb 2022, an ADR was gotten for military records for my husband, he doesn't work in the military just paramilitary service. He has never been in combat or war or all of sort.

We haven't gotten any other update on our profile since then, the MP we contacted said it's a designated non routine application. How come please?

How long more do we have to wait, considering our passports are still with the local visa office
 

smash1984

Champion Member
Oct 7, 2018
2,084
850
Hello, I hope I get some answers here. We got passport request in Feb 2022, an ADR was gotten for military records for my husband, he doesn't work in the military just paramilitary service. He has never been in combat or war or all of sort.

We haven't gotten any other update on our profile since then, the MP we contacted said it's a designated non routine application. How come please?

How long more do we have to wait, considering our passports are still with the local visa office
Did you guys submit the documents requested? Or if not, what response did you give them?