Note: IRCC is reporting that they have been receiving more access to information requests than usual, and as of late May this year are reporting that they may not be able to meet IRCC's service standards.
The vast, vast majority of citizenship applicants have
NO NEED to request access to their personal information. The vast majority of applicants will learn
NOTHING they can actually use from the response to the ATIP request. For the vast majority of applicants the ATIP request is not only a waste of time, but a totally unnecessary drain on IRCC resources.
For the vast majority of citizenship applicants there is virtually a
ZERO chance that requesting and obtaining a copy of one's records will accelerate, by even one day, how long it will take IRCC to process the citizenship application.
But there are circumstances in which
some applicants really could benefit from obtaining a copy of their records.
Anyone who is seeking to become a Canadian citizen should, just suggesting, perhaps consider acting like a citizen and avoid unnecessarily imposing a burden on Canada's taxpayers, on Canada's government services, and particularly so in circumstances which might detrimentally impact access to such services by those who have a real need for them.
Some further observations about ATIP requests:
OP's reports here are rife with over-generalizations and errors including, in particular, just the concept of ordering "GCMS notes" itself.
It may be possible to request and obtain a very comprehensive copy of most entries (other than information subject to being redacted, including the individual's File Requirement Checklist, regarding which see below) into an individual's GCMS records, but that would require a very carefully composed customized request going way beyond the scope of a particular citizenship application.
Unless the ATIP application includes specific requests regarding particular files and specific types of information, significant portions of the individual's records in GCMS will not be copied and sent to the individual.
For ATIP requests seeking a copy of information related to a particular application, such as an individual's citizenship application, generally there is very little if any information in the report which will help the applicant make any decisions going forward. Most of the pertinent information is already known or easily figured out without making the ATIP request. Other details are largely incidental and of little or no import to the applicant. Sure, dates indicated for specific events may offer some individuals a measure of comfort, reassurance that the application is progressing through the process, but for the vast majority of applicants that is what is happening.
To a large extent, for many if not most, the ATIP request is akin to the kids in the back seat of the car on a long trip asking
"are we there yet?"
Which is
NOT to say no one need ever make an ATIP request related to their citizenship application. There are situations in which, yes, the application is a good idea. Those tend to be, however, few and far between.
Some clarifications regarding what has been posted above:
Person dealing with my case is "XXXXX"
Names and initials in the GCMS records usually refer to the individual taking a particular action. This is not necessarily the person at IRCC who will take other actions on the file or application. It is not necessarily the IRCC staff member responsible for or otherwise dealing with the application.
Moreover, this information reveals nothing the applicant needs to know or can use.
References to security checks:
Information about security checks is typically, usually, redacted, including whether a security check has been completed or not.
Other clearances may or may not be indicated, but that does not preclude IRCC nonetheless making an additional, subsequent referral for an update of the clearance.
Test ready tagged (meaning sooner or later the applicant will be called for the test)
All applicants who are not exempt from taking the test will "sooner or later" be called for the test. Test ready tagged can often appear for applicants who are actually exempt from taking the test. In other words, this is not at all useful information.
"Department processing GCMS is entirely different from IRCC"
I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, since the government entity managing and responsible for GCMS is specifically IRCC, and IRCC is also the primary government entity entering data into the GCMS. GCMS is, in particular, IRCC's system.
If this is intended to refer to the government entity
processing the ATIP request for records related the individual's citizenship application, it is wrong. Even if the person making the ATIP request utilizes the general government ATIP application process, rather than that provided directly by IRCC, the request is referred to the particular institution, that is, it is still referred to IRCC to process the request and provide the response.
That said, to my understanding the ATIP request is not (ordinarily) processed by the same IRCC staff who are directly involved in processing the citizenship application.
Note, in particular, GCMS stores only the type of personal information required to process citizenship and immigration clients. It is
IRCC's system, IRCC's single, integrated and worldwide system used
internally to process applications for citizenship and immigration services.
No delays due to ATIP request.
See response by
PMM.
There is a delay in processing only IF you order a copy of your file. This is when the file must be pulled from the processing stream and photocopied and all third party, security information must be removed.
IRCC won't even know if you had ordered GCMS.
Wrong.
Noting, as well and again, actually one cannot just order GCMS as such (see above).
Noting, as well and again, actually IRCC is the government body which will process the ATIP request for personal records related to any citizenship application.
Noting, in particular, any and every access to an individual's records in GCMS is itself noted (recorded) in GCMS. The information is there, in GCMS, for the processing agent or citizenship officer to see. What difference does that make? Usually none is my
guess. But of course it is, nonetheless, part of the total picture which a processing agent and the responsible citizenship officer assesses when evaluating the applicant and the application.
Is there any risk that a processing agent or citizenship officer will take notice of multiple ATIP requests and/or help centre calls (again, GCMS records include an entry for each and every access event), and wonder if there is some particular reason for the applicant to be worried about their application, and then go looking for what that might be? I cannot say how much
if any risk there is of this happening. I can say, however, that ordinarily (with some unusual exceptions) there is nothing to be gained by making the ATIP request, no reason to take any such risks.
Information redacted . . . use of "whitener"
GCMS is a system encompassing multiple databases. For the usual ATIP request, a report is electronically generated much like most databases have various types of reports which can be generated, the respective reports containing information from specified fields in the databases accessed, depending on preset criteria. Most redacted information is simply not included in the output.
I have seen reports from individuals whose response did appear to have some information obscured by white-out or black-out. So that happens, but most redacted information is programmatically excluded from the report which is generated in response to the applicant's ATIP request.
For those who request a copy of the physical file, some white-out or black-out is more likely. This requires, of course, more intensive manual work and will tend to increase the time taken to process the request. Moreover, this can sometimes disrupt the routine processing stream as noted by
PMM.
A request for a copy of the physical file will not result in the applicant being sent a copy of the File Requirements Checklist (FRC) which is being used and completed in steps as the application proceeds through the process. This would indeed be very useful information. In over five years, since the process was modified to employ the FRC, I have seen only one report of CIC (as it was then) releasing a copy of the FRC. Many have specifically asked for it, to no avail. The copy released is the version in use as of the summer of 2012. It was shared extensively online in multiple forums (not sure if it was shared in this forum). It provides a lot of insight into internal processing at IRCC, with the caveat that the list of risk indicators, the triage criteria, has undoubtedly been modified, perhaps extensively, and the final steps have changed per Bill C-24.
Overall: for the vast majority of applicants, the ATIP request will not help, and not accelerate processing times at all. It will not provide any information which the applicant can use to make decisions going forward. It will, however, consume significant government resources, impose an unnecessary cost for all Canadian taxpayers, and potentially have a detrimental impact on how long it takes to get the information for someone who really needs the information.
