What Are My Rights When My Citizenship Application is Delayed?
- Thread starter harith86
- Start date
The options I am seeing:
- political activism
- litigation
- withdrawing and reapplying
- pack up and look for a more welcoming country
- wait. that might be 1 week or 20 years, nobody can tell. I really don't like this one.
I think I'll talk to a lawyer in the next few weeks and decide which of these directions are worthwhile to pursue
Maybe they would have other ideas too
- political activism
- litigation
- withdrawing and reapplying
- pack up and look for a more welcoming country
- wait. that might be 1 week or 20 years, nobody can tell. I really don't like this one.
I think I'll talk to a lawyer in the next few weeks and decide which of these directions are worthwhile to pursue
Maybe they would have other ideas too
-I would reapply, but it might take another ages..no guarantee.. I spoke with the lawyer, he was shocked saying after successfully passing the test, and waiting for 30 months it's a nonsense. He advised to start mandamus process, if financially possible..as non routine it's endless. I know one applicant whose application turned into non routine after exceeding normal timeline and he is still waiting SINCE 2017The options I am seeing:
- political activism
- litigation
- withdrawing and reapplying
- pack up and look for a more welcoming country
- wait. that might be 1 week or 20 years, nobody can tell. I really don't like this one.
I think I'll talk to a lawyer in the next few weeks and decide which of these directions are worthwhile to pursue
Maybe they would have other ideas too
For me personally mandamus seems rather appealing, money is a bit easier to come by right now than time and energy for these things.
But I heard of a case where a lawyer recommended reapplying, so if mine does I might do it.
Good idea, I am still trying to get in touch with ircc these days, at least trying to wake them up..let's see..I feel they simply frozen my file
You've got LPP recently right? And now they insist that you need an interview at an unknown date?
For those who can afford a lawyer, getting at least a detailed consultation (thus one paid for, in which the lawyer actually evaluates the individual's personal situation) is almost always a good idea.
Mandamus:
The main benefit from having a lawyer commence the process for pursuing mandamus is that this can trigger acceleration of processing, with no need to follow through making an actual application to the Federal Court. While individuals can engage in this process themselves, "pro se" in legalese, which begins by making a proper demand of IRCC, the anecdotal reporting almost overwhelmingly indicates a far, far greater success rate when the demand is made by a lawyer. There are some obvious reasons for this, discussed at length in a topic or three specifically about mandamus.
There are caveats. Pursuing relief through mandamus is not cheap. It might not be easy to find a lawyer who will do this. And there is no guarantee, none at all, that the demand will in fact result in IRCC completing the process. Actually following through with a mandamus action can be prohibitively expensive, and it can indeed be a lengthy process, and there is no guarantee it will succeed in getting the applicant to the oath any sooner. Hard to say for sure, but there are some indicators that if IRCC does not, in effect, concede and proceed to promptly complete processing following the demand, that could mean the case for mandamus is weak in IRCC eyes, and contrary to what a number of forum participants bellyache about, IRCC tends to have a lot better vision than many apprehend.
Conclusion re mandamus: For those whose application has been in process for two plus years, who are genuinely unaware of any reason why IRCC would be having trouble verifying their qualification for citizenship, and who can afford to pay a lawyer to make prerequisite-to-mandamus-demand, doing at least this much makes sense.
Leading to . . .
The Timeline Aspect:
As @johnjkjk noted, reapplying is not likely to result in being scheduled for taking the oath sooner; more likely later.
I would add that withdrawing an application is one of the things we knew would result in an application being flagged for increased screening. We do not know the current criteria (sometimes called "reasons-to-question-residency," sometimes "triage criteria"), because all that has been pulled behind the confidential or secret curtain (as investigatory means and methods), but it is highly likely this still is at least a factor which elevates the risk of increased screening. Which means that whatever is holding up the current application will still be among things focused on in processing the new application, in addition to the file more likely being referred into a non-routine processing stream.
That said, if indeed the snag with the current application is questions about meeting the physical presence requirement, and that's basically all that was slowing the first application down, and then the PR has a far stronger physical presence case in a new application, that can indeed result in reaching the oath within the current, practical timelines for more recently made applications.
Note about practical timelines:
The 12 month timeline standard is largely irrelevant (perhaps just outright irrelevant). Currently posted timelines based on actual timelines for 80% of routinely processed applications tend to significantly lag trends in actual current timelines . . . so, currently the posted timeline, which is 21 months, is longer than many reports about what somewhat recently made (within last year or so) applications are experiencing, but at other times (like during the early phase of Covid-pandemic) it way understates likely timelines. So, when trying to get so much as close to a ballpark idea about the likely timeline for any individual applicant:
-- FORGET the 12 month timeline standard
-- Consider the current posted timeline, BUT then adjust it for trends (which can be difficult)
And then understand that this information is very general. How long any specific application takes depends on a lot of factors, details specific to the individual applicant in conjunction to things affecting the process more broadly, those which can have an impact across the board (for nearly all applicants - such as covid did and the strike) and those having an impact more locally (affecting processing timelines in local offices).
and then . . . Not All Non-routine Processing is Created Equal . . .
Applications do, some at sometimes, fall into the cracks and end up stalled for inordinately lengthy time periods. But generally a webform query or an application for copy of GCMS records, or contact through a MP, will resolve these, more less nudging the application back on track.
When timelines go especially long compared to others in the same local office, yeah, it is likely there is, well, some kind of "issue."
This means non-routine processing. But not all non-routine processing is created equal. Some has rather minimal impact on the overall timeline, or at worst just causes a particular delay for a month or four.
Non-routine processing related to security, prohibitions, or physical-presence-concerns, in contrast, can lead to lengthy delays, sometimes very lengthy delays. Security related issues can bog a citizenship application down for MANY years (I've seen several in the 5, 6, and 8 to 10 year range, and discussed one in the forum last year that exceeded TWENTY years). RQ-related non-routine processing, including investigations into presence/residency, can easily add a year or two to the processing time.
Despite protests to the contrary (and saying this likely triggers more protest), if and when IRCC has a significant issue with the applicant/application, the applicant either knows, or would know if they were able to objectively look at their situation. Security concerns, for example, do not just pop up. Residency cases typically bear telltale signs.
One thing that appears to have changed in recent years is the extent to which IRCC issues RQ versus making referrals to CBSA and its NSSD to investigate the applicant's physical presence. In the not so distant past, it was easy to know if IRCC/CIC had a physical presence concern, because the applicant was issued RQ. There have been indications in the last few years, in contrast, that some applications are referred for physical presence investigation with no RQ-related requests made to the applicant.
. . . and then . . . Tracker Notations . . .
Notations in the tracker generally assure applicants things are in process, progressing, but nothing is actually finalized until the oath is taken. Determinations as to every qualifying requirement for citizenship remain contingent until the oath is actually taken. Note, for example, there is ALWAYS an additional background clearance based on a GCMS check, which among other things constitutes a criminal background check based on name-records in RCMP and U.S. NCIC/FBI databases, attendant scheduling the oath. How, why, or when other types of qualification-verification might be revisited is a big subject that involves decision-making largely confidential, behind the curtain one might say. But it can happen. It does happen.
So what gets noted in the tracker is merely a clue, NOT definitive. LPP "completed" is a good sign, but no guarantee.
That said . . .
Note that late 2019 and 2020 applications seem to have been the hardest hit and most sidetracked.
Just three months ago, after all this time, this is at least a sign they are making progress. Whatever what was stalling things before, this signals action on the application.
Meanwhile, yeah, if IRCC perceives the applicant has relocated outside Canada, contrary to wishful arguments otherwise, yes that can trigger non-routine processing leading to lengthy delays. If the processing agent (or at this stage it could be the responsible Citizenship Officer) thinks you are still outside Canada, an interview should be no surprise.
Last edited:
It is costly , for sure to go for Mandamus..and still there is no guarantee. I guess, we just have to accept and wait for the miracle...
For the timelines we have our crowdsourced spreadsheets, I guess.
@inkomati kindly did a bit of analysis here
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/has-anybody-tried-to-generate-processing-times-histogram.800229/
The main problem here is that we don't have comparable data for more and less recent applications, since more of 2022 are still in progress.
I am trying to get official data from IRCC, but that might not work out.
@inkomati kindly did a bit of analysis here
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/has-anybody-tried-to-generate-processing-times-histogram.800229/
The main problem here is that we don't have comparable data for more and less recent applications, since more of 2022 are still in progress.
I am trying to get official data from IRCC, but that might not work out.
I do actually have 2019 (and could go back as far as the spreadsheets exists) and 2023. Here's a graph of milestone by year with the two included, for some of the milestones I judged as more important. Caution for 2023, especially for submission to oath, cause only 6 applicants have taken the oath (1% of applications so far).
Would anybody be interested in having a copy of the cleaned-up and aggregated data? I could maybe share it on GitHub. Right now, I'm abstracting away from most information (like processing centre) in favour of the numerical data, so let me know what other factors you want to know about.
I think having data in some anonymized format somewhere available would be good. We don't want to get in trouble for disseminating something people didn't give consent to be disseminated. So, maybe we should think about this first. I am not sure anybody signs a waiver before putting their info in the spreadsheet?I do actually have 2019 (and could go back as far as the spreadsheets exists) and 2023. Here's a graph of milestone by year with the two included, for some of the milestones I judged as more important. Caution for 2023, especially for submission to oath, cause only 6 applicants have taken the oath (1% of applications so far).
Would anybody be interested in having a copy of the cleaned-up and aggregated data? I could maybe share it on GitHub. Right now, I'm abstracting away from most information (like processing centre) in favour of the numerical data, so let me know what other factors you want to know about.
It might be a good idea to drop some info, like the processing centre, to avoid getting anybody tracked down through where and when they applied.
And that sounds a bit complicated...
I think what would be interesting is online vs paper, and number of applications processed in a certain number of month for each YYYY/mm.
As well as number of applications still in progress for each YYYY/mm.
I wonder if it is better for you to just share the process of how you cleaned it up, so that others can repeat it, and you're not responsible for sharing data?
I am not a lawyer, so can't really advise, but these data privacy things are bothering me a bit.
I was actually mistaken, the "Location" field is where the applicant is living. So we don't even have the processing centre as information. We don't have online vs. paper in the spreadsheet.
As is, in the data that I'm keeping right now, the _most_ nominative information is date of application sent.
The process is simple if you know the R programming language: save each sheet of the Excel file as a .csv file, import to R (skipping the first two lines), combine and process. The .csv files take some cleaning up, because things like "#VALUE!" or the errant "Excel thinks this is a date" cell will make R think a column is text for one file whereas it correctly thinks it's numbers for the rest, and it won't be able to join the files.
Luckily for us, this forum is hosted on a law team's website, so... maybe we could start there if we had a real interest in making the anonymized data more publicly available.