Regarding Delayed Applications - Possible Reason
- Thread starter Leoro619
- Start date
It would appear that there is a lack of transparency regarding processing and we are guessing. We need information! In some cases, virtually identical applicants at the same office are experiencing very different timescales. So it isn't a general delay.
IRCC publicy claims a first-come first-served policy, but this only seems to apply to AOR and possibly test. If there is an algorithm in place that is deciding which applications are triaged to be seen by an officer or processed more quickly, we should know this.
Could I request VIP members to make an information request to IRCC, asking for the ministerial guidance or working procedure that they are using to prioritise/triage applications, specifically what factors automatically deem an application to be non-routine, what factors decide whether an application gets seen by an officer (regardless of when it was received)? Is race,/religion, name, country of origin automatically triggering a non-routine application?
These delays are not just frustrating and stressful- they are ruining lives. Some of us have been in Canada for a long time and have elderly parents at end of life abroad, that we want to spend a year with before they die. Others want to get married, have children, take up a job that needs citizenship etc- but are not eligible for urgent processing. It is immoral for a Government to put people's lives on hold with uncertainty. And it would be scandalous if rather than "first-come, first-served", there is some algorithm that is automatically prioritising/delaying certain applications.
IRCC publicy claims a first-come first-served policy, but this only seems to apply to AOR and possibly test. If there is an algorithm in place that is deciding which applications are triaged to be seen by an officer or processed more quickly, we should know this.
Could I request VIP members to make an information request to IRCC, asking for the ministerial guidance or working procedure that they are using to prioritise/triage applications, specifically what factors automatically deem an application to be non-routine, what factors decide whether an application gets seen by an officer (regardless of when it was received)? Is race,/religion, name, country of origin automatically triggering a non-routine application?
These delays are not just frustrating and stressful- they are ruining lives. Some of us have been in Canada for a long time and have elderly parents at end of life abroad, that we want to spend a year with before they die. Others want to get married, have children, take up a job that needs citizenship etc- but are not eligible for urgent processing. It is immoral for a Government to put people's lives on hold with uncertainty. And it would be scandalous if rather than "first-come, first-served", there is some algorithm that is automatically prioritising/delaying certain applications.
Last edited:
I agree that IRCC falls short of reasonable expectations in regards to transparency, and that processing times have fallen way, way short of reasonable the last two plus years.
HOWEVER, a big part of the no-transparency refrain in this forum comes from those who do NOT do the homework, typically not even close, many who clearly have made little effort to read the information IRCC shares publicly, and from those who like you (or so it appears) who do not even bother to peruse the information available in the very thread where they are complaining about the lack of transparency. For example, it appears you have not read or are otherwise disregarding specific information above, right here in this thread, referencing the File Requirements Checklist and in the FRC the section titled "Triage Criteria / Risk Indicators" in particular, which is explicitly about the criteria employed by IRCC to screen grant citizenship applications; this includes, again here in this very thread, a verbatim copy of the last-known (leaked) version of the triage criteria. No advanced degrees in rocket or political science necessary to map how the criteria works: it does NOT prioritize applications but, rather, identifies applications warranting (from IRCC's perspective) some level of additional scrutiny, including in particular identifying if there are reasons-to-question-residency (which is really about questioning the calculation of physical presence), leading to RQ-related non-routine processing and attendant delays.
In terms of homework, at the very, very, very least, anyone complaining about the lack of transparency and delays in processing should have already reviewed the government's response in completed ATI requests, including in particular information shared in the last two years in the following readily accessible completed requests:
-- Req # 1A-2022-32923 (35 pages of information relating to plans about online versus paper applications for grant citizenship)
-- Req # 2A-2021-42597 (173 pages of information relating to online applications and measures to streamline processing)
-- Req # 2A-2021-65210 (264 pages of information relating statistics in processing citizenship applications, and memos and such regarding plans and measures taken to minimize backlogs, and other related information)
-- Req # 2A-2021-39203 (45 pages of information relating to IRCC's prioritization, processing speed based on the application year and policy direction regarding addressing backlogs)
-- Req # 2A-2020-81634 (338 pages of information related to dealing with citizenship application processing backlogs, including information about amendments to the operational procedures for processing grant citizenship applications)
All that, and much, much, much more, is readily available through the Canadian open government website, which needs no link, since anyone who is at all seriously interested in information about IRCC processing of citizenship applications has the site bookmarked and has already obtained copies of at least some completed Access to Information requests (not the same as ATIP requests, which are for personal information, such as an applicant's copy of GCMS records), even if they have not been proactive enough to make their own ATI request.
The information referenced above is just a slice, a mere slice of information that is readily available for anyone who is genuinely interested in understanding the process beyond how to apply and what to do after applying (which is mostly waiting to participate in test, interview, and oath ceremony, unless subject to non-routine processing requiring additional input; noting that much of the micro-monitoring discussed in this forum, such as following when background checks are done or such, is essentially unnecessary and not much useful, a lot of spinning wheels going nowhere).
Yeah, probably most of those more than 800 pages of information are not especially illuminating (and there are redundancies). So, yeah, it is work, real work, often tedious work, requiring real time and real effort, to navigate all that in conjunction with the massive volume of information accessible directly at the IRCC website, including the PDIs. Yeah, that's at least a part of the homework, and why it is called home WORK not twittering, tweeting, texting. (Caution: this forum is rife with disingenuous commentary selectively misinterpreting some of what has been shared in the information provided by IRCC, including that in these completed requests, which includes some deliberately misconstruing or mischaracterizing the information . . . it really is work to drill into this information genuinely and seriously looking for accurate information and trying to understand it in full context with a great deal of other information.)
We do know that grant citizenship applications are processed according to a File Requirements Checklist (FRC) and a File Preparation and Analysis Template (FPAT). However, these forms are specifically confidential (that is, exempt from public disclosure).
We know that the FRC contains a section titled "Triage Criteria / Risk Indicators," and that this criteria is used to identify applications which will be subject to non-routine screening, which in turn typically means processing of that individual's application takes longer.
I am not sure in what way you employ the term "should" when you say "we should know this." Legally, per decisions upheld by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat which in turn have been upheld judicially, it has been determined that the contents of the FRC and FPAT should NOT be disseminated publicly (and thus, for example, will not even be included in the file transferred to a Federal Court when there is an appeal). Sorting out the explanation for why we should not, as a matter of applying the law, know the contents of these forms or how they are used, is itself a bit difficult if not obscure since we do not have access to the content and it is difficult to evaluate what is not known. But in general terms this information is deemed confidential, or secret, because it is about the manner and means of investigating applicants and the information in applications. This is a broad category of information that is not available to the public under Canadian law.
But for those willing to actually do the homework, it is nonetheless possible to piece together a great deal of related information. It helps if one's homework includes reviewing previous versions of criteria for screening applicants which were not parked behind the confidentiality curtain. These were detailed in an appendix to the operational manual (CP - 5) governing assessment of residency, specifically labeled "reasons-to-question-residency" rather than the "Triage Criteria / Risk Indicators" label.
Moreover, frankly, much of the criteria indicating reasons-to-question-residency should be no mystery. No special power of prophesy needed to recognize many of the factors which are likely to trigger elevated RQ-related scrutiny, and related delays in processing timelines, like "use of a suspect residential-address" or "discrepancy in absences between citizenship application and [IRCC] information during the [eligibility] period," or the applicant has had a child "born outside Canada during the [eligibility] period," or there is an "inconsistency between address on ID and address on application form." All of which were long known criteria, and which are included in the last known verbatim version of the criteria, and which almost certainly continue to be among the criteria considered "risk indicators." (For full list of last verbatim version of the criteria we have, see quote from FRC in previous posts above.)
First-Come, First-Served:
This is most apparent, as you reference, in regards to the order in which applicants get AOR, which is because that is the positive outcome for the first step in the process, the first queue, which is primarily (but not exclusively) about screening the application for completeness.
But first-served does NOT mean first-completed. Even in the first step, some applications require additional checks or tasks for that phase of processing to be completed and the application then referred to a local office. So right off the bat, some applications start falling behind others, including falling behind others arriving at CPC later in time. An application which takes longer to complete a given task at the CPC will of course be referred to the local office later than some other applications.
The order in the queue at the local office is based on when the application arrives there. So if it arrives there later than some more recently made applications, other applications already at the local office and in queue for local office processing, it remains behind them in the queue. It remains in the local office queue based on when it arrived at the local office. In particular, the local office processing will be first-come-to-the-local-office, first-served. Date the application was made (date signed) or date it arrived at CPC-Sydney, is no longer a factor.
Likewise as to particular steps within local office processing, some applications will take longer for respective tasks to be completed, resulting in taking longer to get into the queue for the next step.
Here again, this is no mystery and for anyone who is genuinely interested in figuring out how the process actually works, there is plenty of information available to illuminate this. Unfortunately this forum is rife, if not dominated, by uninformed slogan-bites, more than a little of which appears to be deliberate distraction if not obfuscation.
By the way, triage criteria are NOT employed to prioritize processing. With some limited, narrow exceptions (including those qualifying for "urgent processing," among other isolated exceptions), applications are NOT given priority processing. But for the exceptions, the most quickly done applications are simply those which do not snag at any step of the process. They are not faster than others because of any priority screening, but are simply those which have not been slowed or delayed along the way.
There are, however, almost innumerable snags an application might encounter along the way, slowing that particular application's process, adding time to how long it takes to complete a task, delaying when the application gets to the next queue (which means it is further behind other applications in that respective queue). Some of these can be minimal. Some can be quite substantial. Among the snags causing the longest delays are referrals to other departments with inquiries or for investigation, with security concerns and substantive RQ cases tending to be those causing the longest delays (RQ related delays can range from many months to several years; delays due to security concerns can range from a year to many years . . . quite a few known to involve 8 to 10 years, and at least one taking more than two decades). Applicants are often not aware that their application has stalled or been delayed due to a referral to another department, even if they request copies of their GCMS records. For example, not all RQ-related non-routine processing involves sending RQ-related requests to the applicant, but can be a referral to CBSA NSSD for background investigation, which is entirely behind the confidential curtain hiding information that is considered manner and method of investigating information . . . even the fact of the referral is confidential and typically not disclosed to the applicant.
In any event, many in this forum contest the claim that IRCC operates on a first-come, first-served basis, but those complaints they tend to confuse first-served versus first-completed, and it seems this is often deliberate.
Except in isolated circumstances warranting expedited processing, including applicants qualifying for "urgent processing," there is no express lane. There is no screening of citizenship applications based on the applicant's economic benefit to Canada. In fact, I am disappointed I did not address this sooner, and disappointed no one else has either. BUT any approach to processing citizenship applications prioritizing based on economic status would not only be contrary to Canadian values generally, but is probably unconstitutional. Fair procedure in Canada does not allow for discrimination based on wealth or income or economic status . . . with very narrow, specific exceptions (for example as to specific economic class immigration, part of well-defined scheme with prescribed purposes, noting nonetheless that once an economic class PR is a PR, there is no further advantage or benefit to them based on economic status or factors, thereafter treated equally in procedures with family class immigrants and accompanying family members).
For Reference, verbatim copy of last known version (note some details relate to prior version of law and requirements), FROM PART A FRC --
TRIAGE CRITERIA / RISK INDICATORS
As has been explained extensively in this forum, there is indeed a first-come, first-served policy for processing citizenship applications, but it is applied specifically to first-in applications in particular queues, describing the order in which applications are processed within the respective queues.
This is most apparent, as you reference, in regards to the order in which applicants get AOR, which is because that is the positive outcome for the first step in the process, the first queue, which is primarily (but not exclusively) about screening the application for completeness.
But first-served does NOT mean first-completed. Even in the first step, some applications require additional checks or tasks for that phase of processing to be completed and the application then referred to a local office. So right off the bat, some applications start falling behind others, including falling behind others arriving at CPC later in time. An application which takes longer to complete a given task at the CPC will of course be referred to the local office later than some other applications.
The order in the queue at the local office is based on when the application arrives there. So if it arrives there later than some more recently made applications, other applications already at the local office and in queue for local office processing, it remains behind them in the queue. It remains in the local office queue based on when it arrived at the local office. In particular, the local office processing will be first-come-to-the-local-office, first-served. Date the application was made (date signed) or date it arrived at CPC-Sydney, is no longer a factor.
Likewise as to particular steps within local office processing, some applications will take longer for respective tasks to be completed, resulting in taking longer to get into the queue for the next step.
Here again, this is no mystery and for anyone who is genuinely interested in figuring out how the process actually works, there is plenty of information available to illuminate this. Unfortunately this forum is rife, if not dominated, by uninformed slogan-bites, more than a little of which appears to be deliberate distraction if not obfuscation.
By the way, triage criteria are NOT employed to prioritize processing. With some limited, narrow exceptions (including those qualifying for "urgent processing," among other isolated exceptions), applications are NOT given priority processing. But for the exceptions, the most quickly done applications are simply those which do not snag at any step of the process. They are not faster than others because of any priority screening, but are simply those which have not been slowed or delayed along the way.
There are, however, almost innumerable snags an application might encounter along the way, slowing that particular application's process, adding time to how long it takes to complete a task, delaying when the application gets to the next queue (which means it is further behind other applications in that respective queue). Some of these can be minimal. Some can be quite substantial. Among the snags causing the longest delays are referrals to other departments with inquiries or for investigation, with security concerns and substantive RQ cases tending to be those causing the longest delays (RQ related delays can range from many months to several years; delays due to security concerns can range from a year to many years . . . quite a few known to involve 8 to 10 years, and at least one taking more than two decades). Applicants are often not aware that their application has stalled or been delayed due to a referral to another department, even if they request copies of their GCMS records. For example, not all RQ-related non-routine processing involves sending RQ-related requests to the applicant, but can be a referral to CBSA NSSD for background investigation, which is entirely behind the confidential curtain hiding information that is considered manner and method of investigating information . . . even the fact of the referral is confidential and typically not disclosed to the applicant.
In any event, many in this forum contest the claim that IRCC operates on a first-come, first-served basis, but those complaints they tend to confuse first-served versus first-completed, and it seems this is often deliberate.
This is something that should have been shot down right out of the gate. Triage criteria are used to identify potential problems, triggering increased scrutiny and non-routine processing, resulting in longer processing times. It does not identify applications to be given faster or priority processing.
Except in isolated circumstances warranting expedited processing, including applicants qualifying for "urgent processing," there is no express lane. There is no screening of citizenship applications based on the applicant's economic benefit to Canada. In fact, I am disappointed I did not address this sooner, and disappointed no one else has either. BUT any approach to processing citizenship applications prioritizing based on economic status would not only be contrary to Canadian values generally, but is probably unconstitutional. Fair procedure in Canada does not allow for discrimination based on wealth or income or economic status . . . with very narrow, specific exceptions (for example as to specific economic class immigration, part of well-defined scheme with prescribed purposes, noting nonetheless that once an economic class PR is a PR, there is no further advantage or benefit to them based on economic status or factors, thereafter treated equally in procedures with family class immigrants and accompanying family members).
For Reference, verbatim copy of last known version (note some details relate to prior version of law and requirements), FROM PART A FRC --
TRIAGE CRITERIA / RISK INDICATORS
- Applicant Characteristics:
A1 - Use of a suspect residential address.
A2 - NCB in FOSS, Warning or Note(s) in GCMS indicating a concern.
A3 - Previous citizenship applications which were not approved, withdrawn, abandoned, renounced or revoked.
A4 - Discrepancy in absences between citizenship application and CIC information during the relevant 4 years period.
A5 - Self-identified as a consultant, self-employed or unemployed, with any travel during the relevant 4 year period.
A6 - Absences to home country to sell land/property or to take care of ill family member during the relevant 4 year period.
A7 - Applicant has self declared having less than 1095 days of physical presence.
- Family Characteristics:
B1 - Child born outside Canada during the relevant 4 year period.
B2 - A child has made a non-concurrent minor application.
- Documents:
C1 - ID (provided in support of application) has been issued within 3 months of date of application.
C2 - Inconsistency between address on ID and address on application form.
C3 - Photograph and/or signature on the application do not resemble photograph and/or signature on identity document.
C4 - NPR time (non permanent resident time) has been used in the calculation of basic residence and the original entry data used does not appear on the IMM 1000, the Confirmation of Permanent Residence or in CIC records.
If only we could pin these messages. Thanks for the in-depth information, though I have been very patient, now I just know the why behind it
.You have evidently completely misread and misunderstood the present source of frustration. As I stated very clearly in my post, "In some cases, virtually identical applicants at the same office are experiencing very different timescales". I will further clarify that I, and many I know, are not complaining about the usual process and published information (such as online vs. paper), but rather the more recent alarming trend of certain applications being delayed or sped up for no apparent reason that can be explained by any currently published 'risk indicators'. It would appear from the forum spreadsheet data that, certain non-urgent applications are now being processed at bewilderingly fast paces (4 months) for no apparent identifiable reason, whereas others virtually identical are taking 12 months (the service standard), or perhaps others very long (2+ years), for no reason that can be explained by the published risk factors.
I am familiar with most of the information that you have quoted. To digest it in a nutshell: you are underlining existing published protocols that profile certain applications for suspicion or doubt for residency (self employed, ID less than 3 months old etc), likely leading to RQ. However RQ is a very exceptional circumstance, affecting a very small percentage of applicants, and is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
'non-routine' merely means service target no longer guaranteed; files are not processed as 'non-routine'. You yourself pointed this out before in this thread https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/routine-non-routine.732568/post-9411562
Perhaps it is you who don't understand the complaints. First-come first-served does not necessarily mean first-completed and no one is disputing how delays add up. First-come, first-served, read with a standard processing target, does however mean in general that files are processed in the order that they are received, meaning that the due dates applied to individual tasks reflect this. If you have stood in any queue at any office, or worked with any government or corporate task queue system, with a first-come, first-served policy, you will know that files that are older are flagged for review at the top of the queue continuously. To put this simply, if you want to imagine queues at a Government Office, the person at the front of the queue is processed, whilst others behind you have to wait their turn. Now the 2nd in line could be sent to a newly opened queue, and perhaps may, depending on the complexity, be processed faster than the 1st in line, but logic dictates that on average, apart from the most complex case, the many thousands in line will generally move OUT generally as they moved IN to the system. As there are only limited number of offices and officers, there cannot be an infinite simultaneous processing of new files. Earlier it was generally the case, that REGARDLESS of complexity, 80% of files would be processed to a service standard, in the order in which they were received, with only a small percentage (usually security checks pending by third parties out of IRCC power, or RQ) literally exit the queue and go on hold. But never before to my knowledge have certain files deliberately been sped up, pushed up the queue, or pushed down the queue. So it would appear that at present, first-come, first-served is NOT operational beyond AOR and test (with the current regime of mass testing, regardless of background- it used to be the final stage earlier, with a published 3-4 month timeline from test to oath). We need to know what is operational in its place.
IRCC also admits to having a significant backlog- that is files that are simply not being attended to (rather than files that are currently bogged down in a process delay, such as security or RQ). At the same time, some new applications are being processed in record time; that is NOT first-come, first-served. What decides whether something becomes backlogged, and what prioritised? Unlike with the previous paper PR backlog during the shift to online, and apart from paper vs online quotas and priority, there is no clear published guidance as to what would render a file as being declared backlogged, even if it was technically at the top of the queue.
Now we get back to the nub of the issue: Starting around early 2021, some applications appear no longer to be processed in an orderly fashion; some seemed to be facing inordinate delays for no apparent reason (that is every stage of the process delayed, due dates delayed, even oath delayed for many months after decision made), whereas other files were being processed either normally as they should be (to the service standard), and other non-urgent applications being processed as if they were somehow urgent.
The delays in processing are not just delays with an individual task taking time, but every task on the whole file from beginning of finish taking several times longer than others; with no apparent identifiable RQ risk factor (as published), no clearly identifiable trend or reason as to why.
This was not the case before. What has changed? Clearly there is some kind of prioritisation as well as regression/downgrading happening to files somewhere after AOR (leading to wild guesses by some on this thread such as prioritising those who may be economically beneficial.. or perhaps race being at play or even the (in)efficiency of individual officers). And important to note is that the files which seemed to move sluggishly throughout the process seem to have NO RQ risks and indeed are at the same office where files are being processed much faster. There is also speculation on other possible delay factors e.g. travel or taking the test abroad putting a file on hold (no published guidance).
There is clearly something that is happening at present, which is causing people to become very disconcerted. This is why we need MORE information and clarity. The current trend is NOT explained by published guidance.
This leads us to your final characteristic Kafqaesque statement:
You perhaps don't understand constitutional rights to information, especially as it applies to a vulnerable group, which may involve human rights violations in due process. Governments tend to hind behind confidentiality to withhold all sorts of information, mainly to avoid political embarrassment. In the modern Western legal and political system, there is a constant tussle between citizens rights to information about how they are being governed, the duties of governments to protect their citizens, and (mostly) the whims of bureaucrats and politicians to hide potentially scandalous leaks to the public. Courts are the final arbitrator to this and it is our right to ask for and indeed demand information, and any denials can be challenged in court.. and often information does come out. Sometimes, whilsteblowers have to step in to put the ball into the political arena. Case in point, systemic racism (including policies that specifically targeted certain applications for delay or denial, and prioritised the 'right kind' of immigrant], as well as officer-level targets and quotas (for processing certain kinds of files in certain ways) in the UK immigration system which was revealed only by whistleblowers, resulting in a major scandal and forced a review; where requests for information had previously been continually denied under 'national security' concerns.
Obfuscation means to make unclear or unintelligible; to bewilder. Your verbiage, ignorance of the concerns being raised and where they stem from, combined with your arrogant attitude, ironically serves only to obfuscate.
You are evidently are well versed with IRCC protocols. So perhaps rather than being condescending, you may want to take your time to understand the issue at hand, and use your knowledge to actually help.
Edit: Apologies for typos.
Last edited:
Who trust first come first serve? The fucking 2022 May paper applications have already been completed.
That's my point, which my learned colleague dpenabill seems to dismiss: If it was really first come first served, this would not be possible. We need to know what system is actually in place beyond AOR/TEST, as it is no longer first-come, first-served. That's why I request VIP members who have got citizenship, to appeal for more information from IRCC on this specific issue.
Based on feedback on this forum, it would also appear that in addition to general delays throughout the process, a lot of people are inexplicably stuck in background screening (often security, rarely criminality) for 6+ months. As per older statistics and expert comments, lengthy security screening is unusual for PR and very rare for citizenship applications and usually reflects military, political or government involvement, or international watchlists. Eventually they're being approved, with no explanation as to the delay.
At the same time, people who successfully apply for urgent processing in such a situation, have their background approved almost instantly- after months of years of delay in "screening".
So is IRCC routinely asking CSIS to sit on files (so that IRCC can't be blamed for delays)? CSIS is a black box and not very accountable to the public apart from occassional reports or enquiries.
At the same time, people who successfully apply for urgent processing in such a situation, have their background approved almost instantly- after months of years of delay in "screening".
So is IRCC routinely asking CSIS to sit on files (so that IRCC can't be blamed for delays)? CSIS is a black box and not very accountable to the public apart from occassional reports or enquiries.
FWIW . . . the next several very long posts are an effort to further explain some of the underlying procedure related to the processing timeline. There is not much most applicants can do to accelerate their timeline (other than submitting an application that has the least risk of things that will delay processing even more than what so many are suffering, ranging from making sure their travel history is near perfect to applying with a good margin over the minimum), so the best most applicants can do is wait, be patient, watch for IRCC communications, and respond accordingly. (Applicants can nonetheless engage in various forms of advocacy toward encouraging IRCC to improve its performance, but to the extent that is effective that is about processing generally, not any particular individual's application.)
Thus, MOST will likely prefer to SKIP this, and the following posts, to scroll on by.
For those interested, I hope you find at least some of this illuminating.
So, again, I appreciate your comments, but to be clear my post did not scratch the surface in explaining why so many applicants have run into inordinately long delays in processing, let alone why any particular individual's application is taking so long, let alone why this or that one is taking longer than others, or takes less time than others. That is a huge subject with many tangents. Most of which, by the way, tend to be oriented to the peculiar circumstances in individual cases.
I referenced, for example, the nearly innumerable "snags" that can and do slow applications, only generally referencing two categories of concern which tend to be the most common causing the more extreme delays (RQ-related concerns and security concerns). Again, there are scores (a nearly innumerable number) of other potential snags. Some might delay an application moving forward briefly, by just a day or week or so. Other snags slow things more, take longer, the timelines varying widely. Each snag, each delay, has a cumulative impact on where, in queue for downstream processing steps, an application is relative to other applications.
That said, processing for most qualified applicants generally is relatively snag-free, encountering minimal delays other than the general delays affecting the processing of applications across the board (which unfortunately have been unacceptably lengthy the last two plus years).
Among scores of potential examples which can, and do stall applications, for example, just one example, if in the process of opening an application and doing the completeness screening there is something requiring additional review or verification that can delay checking off the application's completeness by one or two weeks, or so, depending on whether it involves review by another agent. Among the more common issues that arise in this step is verification of pre-PR status for applicants who have included pre-PR time in their presence calculation. That means that application does not go into the queue for the next step, or for AOR, for however long that check of pre-PR status takes . . . once that is verified it goes into the queue for the next task a week or two or so BEHIND later made applications, and thus applications made during the week or two after that application was made and for which the completeness screening was finished without any snags or delay, all those are now IN FRONT of the application that was briefly stalled to verify pre-PR status (or whatever other check was involved).
Indeed, even though the disparities in processing timelines might not be overtly obvious at the AOR stage, actually many applications have already fallen behind later made applications at this very early step in the process. Most not by much. (Some, however, such as those which do not pass the completeness screening and require the applicant to fix their application before it will get AOR, fall behind by months even at this early step).
Leading to some discussion about timeline delays and disparities, in context and with background . . .
Yeah, to be continued.
Thus, MOST will likely prefer to SKIP this, and the following posts, to scroll on by.
For those interested, I hope you find at least some of this illuminating.
I appreciate your comments but it warrants taking note that the way IRCC applies first-come, first-served, does not in itself explain the inordinately lengthy timelines so many applicants have endured these past two years. While understanding how it works partially explains disparity in timelines between applicants, it does not explain or even address what causes the delays. In fact, one of the main objectives in my previous posts above was to affirm that yes, IRCC does employ a first-come, first-serve approach to processing applications, to explain (as best I can in my clumsy wordy way) how that works, and to repudiate the erroneous contention that the disparities in timelines is due to prioritizing criteria, putting some applicants ahead of others, rather than first-come, first-served.
So, again, I appreciate your comments, but to be clear my post did not scratch the surface in explaining why so many applicants have run into inordinately long delays in processing, let alone why any particular individual's application is taking so long, let alone why this or that one is taking longer than others, or takes less time than others. That is a huge subject with many tangents. Most of which, by the way, tend to be oriented to the peculiar circumstances in individual cases.
I referenced, for example, the nearly innumerable "snags" that can and do slow applications, only generally referencing two categories of concern which tend to be the most common causing the more extreme delays (RQ-related concerns and security concerns). Again, there are scores (a nearly innumerable number) of other potential snags. Some might delay an application moving forward briefly, by just a day or week or so. Other snags slow things more, take longer, the timelines varying widely. Each snag, each delay, has a cumulative impact on where, in queue for downstream processing steps, an application is relative to other applications.
That said, processing for most qualified applicants generally is relatively snag-free, encountering minimal delays other than the general delays affecting the processing of applications across the board (which unfortunately have been unacceptably lengthy the last two plus years).
Among scores of potential examples which can, and do stall applications, for example, just one example, if in the process of opening an application and doing the completeness screening there is something requiring additional review or verification that can delay checking off the application's completeness by one or two weeks, or so, depending on whether it involves review by another agent. Among the more common issues that arise in this step is verification of pre-PR status for applicants who have included pre-PR time in their presence calculation. That means that application does not go into the queue for the next step, or for AOR, for however long that check of pre-PR status takes . . . once that is verified it goes into the queue for the next task a week or two or so BEHIND later made applications, and thus applications made during the week or two after that application was made and for which the completeness screening was finished without any snags or delay, all those are now IN FRONT of the application that was briefly stalled to verify pre-PR status (or whatever other check was involved).
Indeed, even though the disparities in processing timelines might not be overtly obvious at the AOR stage, actually many applications have already fallen behind later made applications at this very early step in the process. Most not by much. (Some, however, such as those which do not pass the completeness screening and require the applicant to fix their application before it will get AOR, fall behind by months even at this early step).
Leading to some discussion about timeline delays and disparities, in context and with background . . .
Not really. The history is far more complex and variable than that, including some especially stormy periods along the way.
Yeah, to be continued.
Again, not really. The history is far more complex and variable than that, CIC/IRCC performance more often falling short, and there being some especially stormy periods along the way.
There have been occasional periods during which citizenship processing timelines have been relatively stable, and even reasonably within CIC/IRCC objectives or standards for 80% of applicants. All too frequently, however and for well over a decade, the processing timelines for citizenship applications have been exceedingly variable and often notoriously slow. Frustration with slow processing is almost certainly the most common and persistent subject in citizenship threads going back to before my first participation here (approaching a decade and a half).
Indeed, between 2010 and 2014, the processing timeline, within which 80% of applications were completed, surpassed two years, with scores and scores of applications taking three and four years. During that same period, however, many applicants enjoyed processing timelines in the range of six to ten months. I was at a citizenship ceremony in early 2014, for example, where a significant number of those taking the oath had applied in the second half of 2013, some less than six months earlier, while many others had applied in 2011 and 2012. Personally, I took the oath eight months, almost to the day, after I mailed the application, applying when the processing timeline published by CIC was 18 months, and meanwhile a close acquaintance of mine from the UK suffered a four year wait.
There has long, long been wide disparity in processing timelines for individual applicants. My review only goes back to around 2006, so only covers the last fifteen years. Prior to 2010 the Citizenship Judges, as an organization, published their own statistics (a level of transparency sorely missed), and for a few years after that CIC continued to publish more detailed statistics, clearly illuminating the timelines for processing 20%, 50%, and 80% of applications. Over the years there tended to be only a relatively small difference in the timeline for 20% and 50% but a big difference between those and the timeline for 80%, and during the more problematic periods (2011-2012 was probably the worst, worse than now) the timeline for 80% went way longer than the stated objectives or standards (as best I recall, CIC ceased openly publishing the more detailed timeline statistics, and began publishing only the timeline for 80%, around 2012, when the Harper Conservative government obtained a majority, was at peak dominance, and initiated a broad largely anti-immigrant agenda, with certain economic class exceptions -- among the more notorious examples, the Conservatives adopted laws mandating an intent to continue residing in Canada and provisions for the revocation of citizenship based on convictions for certain crimes, both subsequently repealed by a majority Liberal government).
Timelines have jumped all over in the meantime. Changes in the law itself has had a dramatic impact, timelines speeding up considerably for applications made after 2015 mostly due to the sudden drop in the number of new applications (the implementation of the Harper era 4/6 presence requirement resulted in a year during which only a trickle of PRs became newly eligible for citizenship), and then suddenly began increasing dramatically with the influx of new applications at the end of 2017 into 2018 (due to implementation of the Liberal government's 3/5 presence requirement plus allowing pre-PR credit, so that there were many tens of thousands of PRs suddenly qualified for citizenship, literally overnight the day the 3/5 rule took effect in October 2017).
It was perhaps a particularly twisted cosmic coincidence that the sudden increase in the number of applications being processed was promptly complicated by the impact of Covid-19 in early 2020. The most unfortunate have tended to be those applying in 2019, when IRCC was struggling to handle the post-October-2017 surge of new applications, during a period which required concurrent processing of at least three completely different kinds of applications, depending on the date of the application.
Meanwhile, the disparity in timelines has NEVER (so far as discerned in reviewing statistics and following the process for the last fifteen years) been about "certain files deliberately . . . sped up, pushed up the queue."
Moreover, only to the extent some files encounter issues stalling their progress, resulting in longer processing timelines, would it be at all accurate to say some were "pushed down the queue."
Contrary to unfounded claims otherwise, this remains true during the current period in which once again, as so often before, the processing of citizenship applications has gotten badly bogged down and disparity in timelines among individual applicants has grown bigger (and yeah, in many instances this is unfair, sometimes and for some individuals, exceedingly unfair).
Whenever the timeline for the smooth sailing applications gets bogged down and goes long, the delays inflicted due to additional checks and snags and such tend to be disproportionately much longer, much worse. In the best of times, there are many minor snags which can slow an application by a week or three or so, but in hard times (like the last couple years), those same little snags appear to cause much, much longer delays. So in times like this, the disparities get bigger.
My effort has been (and will continue to be) to explain (as best I can) not argue. Moreover, I was attempting to explain how first-come, first-served works in processing citizenship applications, which is task specific (separate queues for incremental steps in the overall process), not oriented to overall outcome. I was not trying to explain what first-come, first-serve means in general or other contexts.
In terms of first-come, first-served based on date the application is made or received at CPC-Sydney, it is correct that is indeed "NOT operational beyond AOR." And to a large extent, that is the point. And, actually, not operational beyond the order in which applications are opened and the completeness screening is initiated. This has been the way IRCC has always applied first-come, first-served, and it is likewise how CIC previously did it.
So, yeah, again, to be continued . . .
In terms of first-come, first-served based on date the application is made or received at CPC-Sydney, it is correct that is indeed "NOT operational beyond AOR." And to a large extent, that is the point. And, actually, not operational beyond the order in which applications are opened and the completeness screening is initiated. This has been the way IRCC has always applied first-come, first-served, and it is likewise how CIC previously did it.
That is, the date the application arrived at CPC-Sydney only determines the order in which applications are opened; that is no longer relevant, in terms of where in a queue the application is, after the application is opened. That's it. That's what first-come, first-served means in the processing of citizenship applications.
But IRCC also approaches each succeeding step in the process first-come, first-served. So once a particular step is complete and the application is forwarded (IRCC typically uses the term "referred") to another step, the application goes into a queue for that task/step. When the application was made, or when it first arrived at CPC-Sydney, does not matter. It is in the queue based on when it arrived in that queue (not based on which application was made earlier), and within that queue first-in, first-served is the order in which the application is processed, for that step and that step alone.
There is, additionally, the impact of applications going into different processing streams. Each local office is essentially a different processing stream, its own processing stream, so how quickly or slowly applications are being processed in Mississauga is independent of, not connected to, the processing timeline in Scarborough. Even within a local office, there can be separate processing streams, with respectively their own processing timelines. The Mississauga office, for example, handles itinerant services for applicants in various locations some distance from the GTA, and last I saw these were in many respects separate processing streams. So the processing timeline for an applicant from Sudbury, being processed in the Mississauga local office, can be and probably is different for an applicant from Thunder Bay being processed in the Mississauga local office, and those different from GTA applicants being processed in the Mississauga local office.
Allocation of staff will undoubtedly affect the processing timeline within a processing stream. So, sure, this can mean applicants in one stream are being processed faster than in another stream. In terms of effect, in terms of the impact this has, this can appear to be giving those applications priority, but as best I can discern that's incidental, a collateral consequence, not the purpose or intent. But it does lead to some disparity when comparing timelines.
Now, in the last couple years, there is also the distinction between paper and online applications. Many in the forum vehemently complain that IRCC has prioritized paper applications over online applications. These applications are, at least for now, handled in separate processing streams, so yes there will be a difference in the processing timelines, and thus one will likely be faster than the other, on average. I have disputed IRCC is prioritizing one stream (the accusation fielded here by many is that IRCC is prioritizing paper) over the other, but that discussion aside, applications in the two separate processing streams will of course have different processing timelines, so again there will be a net difference, one being faster than the other. (Kind of like how much difference there can be in border-crossing wait times at the Peace Bridge, Buffalo to Fort Erie, compared to the Lewiston to Queenston Heights bridge crossing, both connecting to the QEW and a route for driving from New York State to Toronto . . . first-come, first served in the respective lines, but on particular days the lines can be moving a lot faster at one location compared to the other.)
Again, what I have been describing is about how IRCC applies first-come, first-serve. Not how first-come, first-serve works in other contexts. How IRCC does this may not comport with the view many have as to of how first-come, first-serve should work. You mention, for example: "First-come, first-served, read with a standard processing target, does however mean in general that files are processed in the order that they are received, meaning that the due dates applied to individual tasks reflect this."
If your point of reference is the date the application was made, or date it first arrived at CPC-Sydney, IRCC does not apply first-come, first-serve that way. Well, again, except in regards to the order in which applications are opened. Further down the processing stream the order in which applications were made has NO significance in the order the application is processed. So, in local office processing for example, applications will go into the pre-test preparation procedure based on the order the application arrived in the queue for pre-test preparation. For this, the date the application was made (or arrived at CPC-Sydney) has NO relevance.
It warrants emphasizing, however, that all this does NOT come anywhere near close to illuminating what is causing so much delay or addressing the nearly innumerable snags that slow processing of this or that particular application down. And that is in the best of times. In contrast it is abundantly clear that IRCC's failures to adequately adapt and its failure to reasonably deal with the difficult circumstances of the last three years, largely related to but not entirely derived from the global pandemic, has had a huge impact on processing timelines, both in regards to timelines for particular tasks, and overall timelines.
That would be the case if, in effect, applications were given a priority-number (so to say) based on date made (or date of first arrival at CPC-Sydney), which would put first made applications ahead of later made applications at the various stages of processing. I have made a concerted effort to illuminate that is NOT how IRCC does it. Not how it has done it for as long as I have been paying attention (nearly fifteen years or so).
But it also warrants recognizing that in very broad terms, the net outcome does, usually, resemble this for the majority of applicants. Despite all the ups and downs in processing timelines, over time, when we had ready access to statistics for how long it took 20%, 50%, and 80% of applications, as I previously noted, for any given period of time the stats tended to show there was a rather small difference between 20% and 50% . . . illustrating that, indeed, at least half of applications went through the full process at roughly the same time, at the same pace, and what differences there were, that was mostly about the different pace of processing in different local offices.
It is not certain this is still the case, but it is highly likely (but now also including whatever difference there is between paper and online applications).
Bureaucrats are experts at coming up with a million excuses but the bottom line is that this behavior is a total and complete disregard and disrespect to law abiding applicants who have put in a lot of work to get to be able to apply for citizenship and follow all rules to get there - the fact that call centers are barely reachable and the so called transparent online tracker gives less info that a $10 order from Amazon or Instacart is completely unacceptable and frankly a shame ! any other private service charging $600 and delivering this level of quality would have been sued to bankruptcy by now
Last edited:
The real reason why files are delayed apart from those that have legitimate security concerns, unverifiable physical presence is this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ircc-immigration-officer-container-placeholder-code-inactive-list-1.6669571
The files are just not being processed because they were assigned to an agent that is not available either because they have retired, quit or on vacation.
The files are just not being processed because they were assigned to an agent that is not available either because they have retired, quit or on vacation.