Citizenship Applications after Bill C-6

[itsmyid]

Call me old fashioned, but I think applicants who spend $630 and dutifully fill out their applications as per the instructions should expect files to be processed on a first-come-first-serve basis not randomly and based on the mood of the Sydney office workers, but CIC clearly doesn't see things that way lol

I don't even think this whole thing should take longer than filing tax and getting refund, which is much more complicated - but that's the reality of life LOL

 

[razerblade]

Call me old fashioned, but I think applicants who spend $630 and dutifully fill out their applications as per the instructions should expect files to be processed on a first-come-first-serve basis not randomly and based on the mood of the Sydney office workers, but CIC clearly doesn't see things that way lol

Agreed. More than a decade of dealing with immigration, can't wait to put an end to it.

 

[Stef.]

Call me old fashioned, but I think applicants who spend $630 and dutifully fill out their applications as per the instructions should expect files to be processed on a first-come-first-serve basis not randomly and based on the mood of the Sydney office workers, but CIC clearly doesn't see things that way lol

How do we know that they are randomly processed?
For some security checks take much longer than for others. Some applications are straight forward while others are not. We do not know how they process our files.

 

[razerblade]

How do we know that they are randomly processed?
For some security checks take much longer than for others. Some applications are straight forward while others are not. We do not know how they process our files.

I think he was referring to AORs, which only undergo basic completion checks. Those should be done in order of receipt.

After that whatever happens could be legitimate delays.

 

[spyfy]

Personally, I think you should look into becoming an immigration consultant.. maybe just on the side!

Your knowledge is very worthy

Aw, thanks!

I'll consider it if my current career doesn't work out!

 

[ASMIA]

I used to work in Fort McMurray but our office was in Calgary. We never have a physical mailing address in Fort McMurray. It was contract job by our employer. So I used Calgary as my employer address. That is how it make sense to me. You have to provide them a phone number so as long as your employer can be contacted you are good.

Thanks for your explanation !

 

[spyfy]

In question 11, I put a "yes" check mark for "I was employed", put I didn't select neither "yes" nor "no" for the rest of the items ("I was self-employed", "I was at school" etc.).

@spyfy - what do you think, could it be a reason for CIC to return the application?
(I was working for the same company during my stay in Canada all the time - and I specified this is the table for Q11).

Thanks!

I don't think this will be a problem

 

[spyfy]

For all those who point at the unfairness/randomness with which IRCC gives out AOR, here are my two cents.

People are pointing out that it's kind of unfair if post-Oct 11 ("old") people get AOR although there are pre-Oct 11 ("new") people who haven't received it yet.

Apart from the fact that one could argue if FIFO (first in first out) is the central measure of fairness (a discussion which I want to avoid because discussing it in this forum wouldn't be productive) please keep in mind that even if FIFO were usually the central principle, IRCC currently has to retrain their staff to handle the new applications.

In a very simplified way, IRCC had the following two options and after you read them I think it should be obvious that option B is the only reasonable one to pick:

Option A
- Let all of Sydney staff only work on the AOR for old applications.
- Once all those applications received AOR/were sent back to the applicants, start training all staff for the new applications.
- Then start issuing AOR to the new applicants.

Option B
- Say, for the sake of example (this is not the actual number of course), there are 100 people in Sydney that do completeness checks/AORs for applications.
- In week 1, 90 of them do old applications and 10 of them are trained to handle the new applications.
- In week 2, 80 of them do old applications, 10 of them are trained to handle the new applications, and the 10 who were trained the previous week can now handle new applications.
- In week 3, 70 of them do old applications, 20 of them are trained to handle the new applications, and another 10 are being trained
- and so on

Anyone who has ever studied organizational/management theory can confirm that it is way more effective and efficient to "phase in" processes like in Option B. It's like step by step amping up a power plant. Or step by step installing new fare gates at the TTC. Or step by step introducing customers to the new online banking interface. Or beta testing an App before releasing it to all users...

So, Option B is the only reasonable thing to do. And If you look at option B it should be pretty apparent why it is totally fine, fair and productive that some new applicants already have AOR while some old applicants didn't receive it yet.

Note: I am not advocating that IRCC is well-managed. I couldn't agree more that everyone who pays $630 Dollars should expect better service from an agency that on top of that fee is funded by the very taxes we all pay. There are many things IRCC should do differently.

All I am trying to do is to shed some light on why sometimes, if you look at it from your individual perspective, doesn't make sense but if you look at the broader picture it in fact does.

 

[oceanidmiao]

For all those who point at the unfairness/randomness with which IRCC gives out AOR, here are my two cents.

People are pointing out that it's kind of unfair if post-Oct 11 ("old") people get AOR although there are pre-Oct 11 ("new") people who haven't received it yet.

Apart from the fact that one could argue if FIFO (first in first out) is the central measure of fairness (a discussion which I want to avoid because discussing it in this forum wouldn't be productive) please keep in mind that even if FIFO were usually the central principle, IRCC currently has to retrain their staff to handle the new applications.

In a very simplified way, IRCC had the following two options and after you read them I think it should be obvious that option B is the only reasonable one to pick:

Option A
- Let all of Sydney staff only work on the AOR for old applications.
- Once all those applications received AOR/were sent back to the applicants, start training all staff for the new applications.
- Then start issuing AOR to the new applicants.

Option B
- Say, for the sake of example (this is not the actual number of course), there are 100 people in Sydney that do completeness checks/AORs for applications.
- In week 1, 90 of them do old applications and 10 of them are trained to handle the new applications.
- In week 2, 80 of them do old applications, 10 of them are trained to handle the new applications, and the 10 who were trained the previous week can now handle new applications.
- In week 3, 70 of them do old applications, 20 of them are trained to handle the new applications, and another 10 are being trained
- and so on

Anyone who has ever studied organizational/management theory can confirm that it is way more effective and efficient to "phase in" processes like in Option B. It's like step by step amping up a power plant. Or step by step installing new fare gates at the TTC. Or step by step introducing customers to the new online banking interface. Or beta testing an App before releasing it to all users...

So, Option B is the only reasonable thing to do. And If you look at option B it should be pretty apparent why it is totally fine, fair and productive that some new applicants already have AOR while some old applicants didn't receive it yet.

Note: I am not advocating that IRCC is well-managed. I couldn't agree more that everyone who pays $630 Dollars should expect better service from an agency that on top of that fee is funded by the very taxes we all pay. There are many things IRCC should do differently.

All I am trying to do is to shed some light on why sometimes, if you look at it from your individual perspective, doesn't make sense but if you look at the broader picture it in fact does.

Well said. Makes sense.

 

[sapuser72]

I did not add my name to my photo and actually sent in the old photo size as well - really surprised to get AOR today so you should be okay

Cool. Did you apply under the new rule or the old one?

 

[krishna_05]

Received the application at Sydney Oct 27th. Total eligibility days - 1350. Family of 2 adults.

Things which I am not sure of -
1. List all the names you have used - have repeated my name there as "name at birth", not sure if this section was only if the name was ever changed.
2. Multiple work permits - just entered one row under the "status" starting from the eligibility period up until receiving PR.
3. Number of days outside Canada during the eligibility period is more than 183 days. Did not fill/send the CIT007 form. Think this is only for those who can count the days outside Canada.

 

[sukhi7]

Surprisingly as in Google Sheet Oct 6 to Oct 10 application delivered guys still haven't got AORs or they have not entered. Pl enter if you got AOR.

Good that floodgates have been opened for 11th onwards for 3/5 with AORs

 

[Abu Hassaan]

Dear Fellows,

Apology if this has already been discussed. When I print the filled in application form, the information entered in tables especially in question 11 is not printed completely. The call width amd height are fixed and a small plus sign is also printed rather tham full text in some cells. Is it normal or there is a work around?[/QUOTE]

Did anyone encounter same issue as stated above?

 

[Johnboy]

This is a known problem. You will need to download the updated form and re-enter all your information.
see Tracking working/non working versions of form CIT0002E-2

 

[rashcanada]

@Canven84
Please add me in the sheet

Location: Brampton
App.Type: Family (3)
Physical Presence Days: 1300
App Sent: Oct 23, 2017
App Recd: Oct 26, 2017