(For context: this is a response to content, not a reply to the OP.)
But, of course, I am no expert. Contrary to unfounded and totally erroneous insinuations, albeit largely by those tending to be blatantly unreliable and non-credible, I have never been employed by the Canadian government let alone CIC or IRCC, or otherwise professionally involved in immigration matters (outside some incidental involvement in a very small number of cases many decades ago which were not related to Canada in any way).
I do make mistakes. Over the course of many years following and commenting on a number of citizenship and PR related issues (initially rooted in and derived from, but not exclusively, interests related to issues in my own case), I have had to correct more than a few misconceptions and outright mistakes I have made. Thus, while I make a concerted effort to be accurate, to do the homework, to think and approach things from a perspective outside a narcissistic box, to take into account and duly consider many sources of information, and to exercise critical reasoning in my analysis and observations, despite all that, it needs to be emphasized that I am NO expert and not an authoritative source, that what I post should also be approached with the proverbial grain-of-salt.
And, I confess to leaning more in favour of boring narratives rather than being misleading or erroneous.
Speaking of misleading or erroneous:
In reference to the idea that GCMS notes can indicate that the criminality [check] is passed . . . at least for sure it is passed:
Actually IRCC will continue to do additional GCMS checks, including FOSS checks, which includes doing criminal name-record checks, right up to the time the oath is scheduled. Apart from and in addition to the initial GCMS clearance, and the initial, official RCMP clearance, IRCC will do this at the least, probably, two more times (except for those who are scheduled to take the oath concurrently with being scheduled for the test, then perhaps only once more). Moreover, depending on how long processing takes, the RCMP clearance itself is sometimes subject to a referral for an update. Additionally, before being allowed to take the oath of citizenship, the applicant must again affirm (usually in writing) there have been no criminal charges made and there are no criminal charges pending (along with affirming there are no other prohibitions).
Apart from that, here too there will be nothing of use learned from an indication in the GCMS that the criminality check has been completed. Applicants know if they have been arrested or charged with criminal offenses. They know if they have a criminal conviction. They know and if they have, then they must disclose that fact to IRCC. The criminal clearance will do NO more than confirm what the applicant already knows. That is, there is no need to make an ATIP request to learn whether one will pass the criminality clearance.
In other words:
References to "visa office" and what the "visa office" knows or does not know (such as whether the applicant has made an ATIP request):
Regardless what some visa office official might know regarding an individual applying for Permanent Residence in Canada, which is largely irrelevant here (IRCC may examine and consider the applicant's history including any visa office processing of the applicant's PR application, but that is largely outside the scope of what is routinely considered by the local citizenship office in the course of IRCC processing a citizenship application), any event involving access to GCMS is recorded in GCMS, including access to generate a copy in response to an ATIP request as well as access by a call centre agent pursuant to a client's inquiries. The information is there. Whether or not a processing agent (such as the person conducting the documents-check interview) or the citizenship officer (who makes a definitive decision to grant citizenship or not) will take notice of such events probably varies, and if they do take notice, it is far from clear how that might effect their approach to the applicant. My guess is that it will rarely have much if any impact. But nonetheless the information is there.
It is simply wrong to assert otherwise.
Even a call centre agent accessing an individual's GCMS records can see the record-entry for these events in GCMS.
Otherwise, generally there are no VISA Offices involved in processing a citizenship application unless the local IRCC citizenship office processing the citizenship application has made a referral to a visa office to make inquiries or conduct an investigation abroad; that would involve non-routine processing and does not arise in the vast majority of routinely processed citizenship applications.
Hint: if this happens, the report generated for the client in response to an ATIP request is not likely to so much as intimate this has happened. That information will fall under the confidential umbrella for investigatory actions and not be shared with the applicant. An inordinate delay in processing will be the applicant's primary clue that something like this might be happening.
Burden of ATIP requests versus legal right to make ATIP request:
There are circumstances in which an applicant would be wise to make an ATIP request. While these are few and far between, doing this and getting a timely response can be important in some cases. IRCC has given notice that it has, indeed, been burdened by an unusual number of such requests and that therefore it might not be meeting its service objectives.
But sure, there is no law against taking, so to say, a narcissistic Mickey Mouse approach to things. In contrast, however, for most of those pursuing a path to Canadian citizenship, this is a big and important step in their life. They take it, and becoming an in-fact citizen, seriously. It is no Disney cartoon. In particular, there is the more mature, responsible citizen approach, which will take into consideration that this service, this means for obtaining access to one's personal records, should not be frivolously abused, with at least some consideration given for not unduly burdening access by those who really need it (for one of any in a range of potentially good reasons).
Again, overall, for legitimate, qualified applicants there is little or no reason to make the ATIP request for records related to processing the citizenship application. Ordinarily, generally, the ATIP request will not accelerate processing, not at all. The ATIP request is not much if at all likely to provide any actionable information.
Reason weighs heavily in favour of taking a mature, responsible citizen approach to these things.
I will post further observations about if and when it would be prudent to make an ATIP application for copy of personal records:
Thank you.
But, of course, I am no expert. Contrary to unfounded and totally erroneous insinuations, albeit largely by those tending to be blatantly unreliable and non-credible, I have never been employed by the Canadian government let alone CIC or IRCC, or otherwise professionally involved in immigration matters (outside some incidental involvement in a very small number of cases many decades ago which were not related to Canada in any way).
I do make mistakes. Over the course of many years following and commenting on a number of citizenship and PR related issues (initially rooted in and derived from, but not exclusively, interests related to issues in my own case), I have had to correct more than a few misconceptions and outright mistakes I have made. Thus, while I make a concerted effort to be accurate, to do the homework, to think and approach things from a perspective outside a narcissistic box, to take into account and duly consider many sources of information, and to exercise critical reasoning in my analysis and observations, despite all that, it needs to be emphasized that I am NO expert and not an authoritative source, that what I post should also be approached with the proverbial grain-of-salt.
And, I confess to leaning more in favour of boring narratives rather than being misleading or erroneous.
Speaking of misleading or erroneous:
In reference to the idea that GCMS notes can indicate that the criminality [check] is passed . . . at least for sure it is passed:
Actually IRCC will continue to do additional GCMS checks, including FOSS checks, which includes doing criminal name-record checks, right up to the time the oath is scheduled. Apart from and in addition to the initial GCMS clearance, and the initial, official RCMP clearance, IRCC will do this at the least, probably, two more times (except for those who are scheduled to take the oath concurrently with being scheduled for the test, then perhaps only once more). Moreover, depending on how long processing takes, the RCMP clearance itself is sometimes subject to a referral for an update. Additionally, before being allowed to take the oath of citizenship, the applicant must again affirm (usually in writing) there have been no criminal charges made and there are no criminal charges pending (along with affirming there are no other prohibitions).
Apart from that, here too there will be nothing of use learned from an indication in the GCMS that the criminality check has been completed. Applicants know if they have been arrested or charged with criminal offenses. They know if they have a criminal conviction. They know and if they have, then they must disclose that fact to IRCC. The criminal clearance will do NO more than confirm what the applicant already knows. That is, there is no need to make an ATIP request to learn whether one will pass the criminality clearance.
In other words:
Precisely.
References to "visa office" and what the "visa office" knows or does not know (such as whether the applicant has made an ATIP request):
Regardless what some visa office official might know regarding an individual applying for Permanent Residence in Canada, which is largely irrelevant here (IRCC may examine and consider the applicant's history including any visa office processing of the applicant's PR application, but that is largely outside the scope of what is routinely considered by the local citizenship office in the course of IRCC processing a citizenship application), any event involving access to GCMS is recorded in GCMS, including access to generate a copy in response to an ATIP request as well as access by a call centre agent pursuant to a client's inquiries. The information is there. Whether or not a processing agent (such as the person conducting the documents-check interview) or the citizenship officer (who makes a definitive decision to grant citizenship or not) will take notice of such events probably varies, and if they do take notice, it is far from clear how that might effect their approach to the applicant. My guess is that it will rarely have much if any impact. But nonetheless the information is there.
It is simply wrong to assert otherwise.
Even a call centre agent accessing an individual's GCMS records can see the record-entry for these events in GCMS.
Otherwise, generally there are no VISA Offices involved in processing a citizenship application unless the local IRCC citizenship office processing the citizenship application has made a referral to a visa office to make inquiries or conduct an investigation abroad; that would involve non-routine processing and does not arise in the vast majority of routinely processed citizenship applications.
Hint: if this happens, the report generated for the client in response to an ATIP request is not likely to so much as intimate this has happened. That information will fall under the confidential umbrella for investigatory actions and not be shared with the applicant. An inordinate delay in processing will be the applicant's primary clue that something like this might be happening.
Burden of ATIP requests versus legal right to make ATIP request:
There are circumstances in which an applicant would be wise to make an ATIP request. While these are few and far between, doing this and getting a timely response can be important in some cases. IRCC has given notice that it has, indeed, been burdened by an unusual number of such requests and that therefore it might not be meeting its service objectives.
But sure, there is no law against taking, so to say, a narcissistic Mickey Mouse approach to things. In contrast, however, for most of those pursuing a path to Canadian citizenship, this is a big and important step in their life. They take it, and becoming an in-fact citizen, seriously. It is no Disney cartoon. In particular, there is the more mature, responsible citizen approach, which will take into consideration that this service, this means for obtaining access to one's personal records, should not be frivolously abused, with at least some consideration given for not unduly burdening access by those who really need it (for one of any in a range of potentially good reasons).
Again, overall, for legitimate, qualified applicants there is little or no reason to make the ATIP request for records related to processing the citizenship application. Ordinarily, generally, the ATIP request will not accelerate processing, not at all. The ATIP request is not much if at all likely to provide any actionable information.
Reason weighs heavily in favour of taking a mature, responsible citizen approach to these things.
I will post further observations about if and when it would be prudent to make an ATIP application for copy of personal records:
