When to make mandamus?

[dpenabill]

So in essence unless an application is suspended or on hold then there's no point in mandamus.

It is more complicated than that. I do not mean to dismiss the efficacy of pursuing Mandamus in the sundry situations which, at least historically, judicial action is warranted. That is, sometimes an applicant needs to seek judicial intervention.

But that is not a bet worth making based on the mere passage of time.

If an extraordinary amount of time has passed, AND after queries have been made there is still NO ACTION, that may signal something amiss, and then it is time to take affirmative action to prompt IRCC into proceeding, or find out WHY there is no progress. At that stage an applicant may begin thinking about whether pursuing Mandamus is worth considering (but if so, there is yet a long way to go before actually pursuing Mandamus).

There are almost no signs this sort of thing, that is extraordinary long processing times, is happening much (subject, of course, to invariable exceptions) WITHOUT CAUSE. There are always for-cause cases getting hung up. For example, some applicants have security issues which can drag on for years.

And there may be certain groups of applicants who might see extra-long processing times, applicants with potential issues particular to their group:
-- for example, we are waiting to see reports about how it will go for some PR-refugees with potential cessation issues who have citizenship applications pending, recognizing some signs IRCC may be stalling a bit in these cases
-- another example, there are some faint signals that applicants perceived to be living abroad may continue to be bogged down in processing that drags on much longer than it does for others



WHAT ABOUT EXTRAORDINARILY LONG PROCESSING TIMES:

I also do not mean to dismiss an applicant's questions or concerns if and when a rather long period of time has passed, particularly if that has been with no action at all on the application.

BUT if it has been extraordinarily long, not just longer than many but longer than almost everyone else, rushing to pursue a Writ of Mandamus is rarely the prudent move.

As I posted in my first post:

There are other more efficient ways to prompt IRCC to take action IF for some reason the application is simply stalled for no reason. This does happen. How often is difficult to discern. Perhaps more often than rare but if so not by much more. In such cases just the webform query or perhaps even a help centre telephone call can prompt IRCC to take action and move the application forward.

It can help to do some homework and approach the webform query or help centre call intelligently, strategically, in a mode to be persuasive which is easier done the better informed and more thoughtful one is, exercising patience and being polite, somewhat persistent but decidedly polite. ​

THEN, there is the ATIP application, which if customized is far more likely to both generate real information and perhaps be an impetus for IRCC to take action. The generic ATIP is nearly worthless. A worthwhile customized ATIP is NOT easy. Demands doing real homework. Demands an astute, diligent, and creative focus. Demands crafty and cogent composition. The applicant needs to know what to ask for, specifically, and how to ask.

And if IRCC just sits on the application after all that, or the applicant discovers the application is on hold or suspended and the reason for that seems unjustified, THEN it is time to see a lawyer, and perhaps talk about Mandamus. Which at that stage would be to talk about further steps to take BEFORE any application for the Writ of Mandamus.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT VERY, VERY FEW APPLICANTS SHOULD GET ANYWHERE NEAR SUCH A SCENARIO!

For the vast, vast majority of applicants, preparing for this eventuality would be a total waste of time because there should NEVER be a need to go this way.

Note: pursuing a Writ of Mandamus is litigation. Judicial litigation. A lawsuit. A lawsuit against the Minister, in effect against the government of Canada. It is formal, official, and serious. It tends to be expensive. The loser can be ordered to pay the other side's legal costs. That can be very expensive. And until they are actually in the fray there is a cost many, many litigants underestimate: litigation is a lot more emotionally and psychologically taxing than most anticipate, a lot, lot more. Moreover, as I have emphasized, pursuing Mandamus is litigation which is more technical than most civil lawsuits and thus virtually demands employing a lawyer and not just any lawyer, and it can indeed be difficult to find a reasonably priced, yet competent lawyer, and even when one is found and hired, such lawyers can be difficult to communicate or work with.

Short version: suing the government is NOT going to be any fun. Even the masochist is likely to find it excessively punishing if not rather brutal.



WHAT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY LONG TIME:

Of course the rhino-in-the-cabinet underlying all this is what constitutes an extraordinary long time.

My sense is that the when-is-it-overtime? question was the real question. A year plus a day? Not by long shot.

How long is too long is relative. Timelines vary greatly. They vary from person to person. They vary from local office to local office. They vary from year to year, even season to season. And even when MOST applicants are sailing through the process rather quickly (for awhile it looked like timelines for many if not most were going shorter than six months; my sense is the median timeline is growing longer these days), even then a significant percentage of applicants can face considerably longer processing timelines.

To put timelines in context, back when it was easy to look up how long it had taken CIC to process 20%, 50%, and 80% of applications (back when CIC was actually more or less transparent and published such information where it was easy to access), for various types of applications including citizenship, including spousal sponsored PR visa applications, among others, there was a rough correlation (very rough, but nonetheless readily discerned) among many of the different processes: it tended to take somewhat more than twice as long to process 80% of the applicants than it did to process 50%. The difference between 20% and 50% varied depending on what type of process it was, but for citizenship and for spousal sponsored PR applications, the difference between how long it took to process the first 20% and 50% was small . . . it appeared that about 50% of applications went through the process about as fast as any were processed, so the first 20% were little or no faster than how long it took to process 50%. But then it took a lot longer, twice as long plus some for the rest, with some (the remaining 20% after 80% had been processed) taking way longer than that.

Timelines today may not follow that pattern but my guess is that the rough correlation continues . . . that ratio persisted through some rather wild swings in the numbers themselves.

We all like to be in the 20/50% group. The fast lane. Those who are not can anticipate things going around twice as long. Or longer.

In other words, if it looks like around half or so those who applied around the same time have a five to seven month timeline, there probably is NO reason to be concerned about an unusual or excessive hold on an application for at least 13 or 14 months. And only then if in the meantime it looks like almost everyone else, and I do mean almost everyone else (not just most, let alone just many), is reaching a Decision Made and scheduled for the Oath, only then is it really time to start digging, do the homework, make the queries to the call centre and/or a webform query, and go from there.

My sense, my guess, is that median timelines are probably going to get, at minimum for awhile, at least six to eight or ten months . . . which will mean that most are processed in well less than a year, but a large percentage will take more like 14 to 16 months . . . meaning it is likely there will be no reason to get at all concerned until at least a year has past, and no significant cause to undertake affirmative, proactive steps until fifteen or so months have past. And that does not mean it is time to pursue Mandamus.

But of course there will be scores of forum participants freaking out after much shorter time periods, bogging down the help centre telephone line, abusing IRCC resources and taxpayers' dollars making premature and unnecessary ATIP requests, not behaving like a citizen at all. So it goes.

 

[faithfulcanadian]

But of course there will be scores of forum participants freaking out after much shorter time periods, bogging down the help centre telephone line, abusing IRCC resources and taxpayers' dollars making premature and unnecessary ATIP requests, not behaving like a citizen at all. So it goes.

Sometimes when reading through your always extended essays or rather newspaper report type comment, I couldn't but stop and think to myself how your arrogance is highly profound!

I mean, who do you think you are, really? How dare you refer to these people as not law abiding? when indeed they are simply seeking redress of any unfair treatment towards them.

I assume you are a citizen of Canada, thats why you are always flexing your muscle here on a forum no one cares about, always want to be the only knows it all!

And if you are not a citizen yet, I hope & pray that one day, your application take as much as 40 years in the IRCC's workload, I pray that you remain the "only applicant" among your group that IRCC cuts off, stop processing and sidetrack your application unreasonably, regardless if you meet the requirement or not, then maybe, just maybe you can come back here and read through your own thrash again, you may just realize what majority of these people are going through.

Such inhumane unsymphathetic most callous last paragraph you wrote here.

 

[Alurra71]

Sometimes when reading through your always extended essays or rather newspaper report type comment, I couldn't but stop and think to myself how your arrogance is highly profound!

I mean, who do you think you are, really? How dare you refer to these people as not law abiding? when indeed they are simply seeking redress of any unfair treatment towards them.

I assume you are a citizen of Canada, thats why you are always flexing your muscle here on a forum no one cares about, always want to be the only knows it all!

And if you are not a citizen yet, I hope & pray that one day, your application take as much as 40 years in the IRCC's workload, I pray that you remain the "only applicant" among your group that IRCC cuts off, stop processing and sidetrack your application unreasonably, regardless if you meet the requirement or not, then maybe, just maybe you can come back here and read through your own thrash again, you may just realize what majority of these people are going through.

Such inhumane unsymphathetic most callous last paragraph you wrote here.

You speak about dpenabill being inhumane and callous yet one paragraph before it you are wishing him nothing but ill will.

If you are not yet a Canadian, I surely hope when you get to your oath your demeanour changes, because wishing anyone ill will because you disagree with their viewpoint is just so.. not Canadian ...

 

[faithfulcanadian]

You speak about dpenabill being inhumane and callous yet one paragraph before it you are wishing him nothing but ill will.

If you are not yet a Canadian, I surely hope when you get to your oath your demeanour changes, because wishing anyone ill will because you disagree with their viewpoint is just so.. not Canadian ...

That individual dpenabill was judgemental, period!! I don't care who you are, or what you think. If you like you can be IRCC's rat. No one cares.

Not here to debate what a true Canadian is either!! Because I am a noble Canadian!!

Its my last comment on this matter, so you, or anyone else here who hates the truth can feel free to write your long **ss essay.

 

[sarafandee]

This thread was informative, but fun to read at the same time. While I agree that extended periods of processing time may not be accepted as grounds for a legal appeal through a lawyer, one thing can still be said of our processing system: it is deeply flawed and requires fixing. There is no real transparency as to why an application could be delayed for many months, or years, leaving the applicants in frustration and confusion as to why a country like Canada still falls behind in their application processing procedures.

 

[Jag9315]

Hi , to all question to all,,,
I m outland ( express entry ) applicant, its been almost 28 months so far but there is not any movement on the file, I recently order the dcms notes , the comment in this one is exactly same as it was when I ordered the notes 2 years ago ,the officer is not touching my file ,,

Can i take mycase through the court and se whats gonna happen , is this a gud idea or not ???

 

[Zmaqsood]

Hi , to all question to all,,,
I m outland ( express entry ) applicant, its been almost 28 months so far but there is not any movement on the file, I recently order the dcms notes , the comment in this one is exactly same as it was when I ordered the notes 2 years ago ,the officer is not touching my file ,,

Can i take mycase through the court and se whats gonna happen , is this a gud idea or not ???

Wrong forum mate its a citizenship thread. PR thread may be of better help to u

 

[Liman1]

There are other more efficient ways to prompt IRCC to take action IF for some reason the application is simply stalled for no reason. This does happen. How often is difficult to discern. Perhaps more often than rare but if so not by much more. In such cases just the webform query or perhaps even a help centre telephone call can prompt IRCC to take action and move the application forward.

It can help to do some homework and approach the webform query or help centre call intelligently, strategically, in a mode to be persuasive which is easier done the better informed and more thoughtful one is, exercising patience and being polite, somewhat persistent but decidedly polite.

Otherwise there are a range of reasons why an application is taking longer than others, longer than most, longer even than many of those which take longer than most. Mandamus is of little use when IRCC has a reason for additional processing time, even if most of the additional time is about the application sitting in a long queue waiting for someone to take action. No mandamus relief is likely to be available for these sorts of delays.

In the past there were more than a few reports of CIC (before the transition to IRCC) essentially putting processing on hold for some applications, an informal sort of suspending of processing. These were the subject of some successful mandamus cases. Of course the Harper government responded by amending the law to incorporate overt authority for suspending processing, but that can only be for certain reasons and can involve some actual limits on the amount of time.

Historical Note: In the past, for example, there were many signs that CIC was deliberately not proceeding ahead with applications if CIC perceived the applicant was living or working abroad while the application was in process. There was no legal authority for CIC to do this. Nor is there legal authority for IRCC to do this now. BUT more than a few have the sense that even now, if IRCC perceives the applicant is living or working abroad, there may be some deliberate stalling. If this is what is happening, an applicant might get things moving by merely initiating the process to pursue a Writ of Mandamus without actually making an application to the Federal Court.


Which leads to some observations about the procedure itself:

As noted, even among lawyers there are few who are experts in making an application for a Writ of Mandamus. The process can be a bit tricky.

While anyone can make an application for the Writ, and have it promptly dismissed or denied, to have any hope of success there are certain prerequisites which need to be met, technical requisites which must be met to actually qualify for a Writ when there are solid grounds for one.

A key prerequisite is the demand made for the Minister to take an action the law clearly compels the Minister to take. Properly making this demand is critical to the chances of success later when an application for the Writ is made to the Federal Court. Doing this is NOT so simple as it may appear. Identifying the precise action which the Minister is compelled by law to do, and has failed to do, and the legal authority for this matter-of-law mandate, demands technical legal expertise.

THIS IS NOT PRO SE TERRITORY. THIS IS QUALIFIED, COMPETENT LAWYER COUNTRY.

If the demand does not state with sufficient clarity and authority what action the Minister is compelled by law to take, and clearly demand that specific action be taken, that alone can cause the later application for a Writ to fail. No matter how strong its underlying merits otherwise are.

This is perhaps best illustrated by the experience scores and scores of applicants had in the period 2011 to 2013 or so, when citizenship processing had bogged down to the point that even routine cases often took more than TWO years, and as mentioned before, scores of non-routine applications were taking three, four, or more years. Forum reports (including in other more active forums at the time) clearly indicated that those who attempted to represent themselves in making the requisite demand, the demand that the Minister take action, tended to see little or no action by CIC, NOT EVEN A RESPONSE TO THE DEMAND. CIC basically ignored these demands, recognizing that for purposes of compelling CIC to take action the demands were so flawed as not warrant a response.

In contrast, for those who had actual grounds and who employed experienced lawyers, many reported that CIC proceeded to take action, to move the case along, no need to actually file an application for the Writ. Indeed, it appeared that if there were actual grounds for a Writ (but remember, the mere length of time is NOT grounds), CIC tended to proceed to a decision in the case. Thus, few of the cases that actually resulted in an application to the Federal Court were successful, apparently because CIC essentially conceded almost all of those cases in which there were good grounds, leaving only those without good grounds to make their futile applications to the courts.

The TAKE-AWAY: if there are grounds supporting the application for a Writ of Mandamus, FIRST a proper demand has to be made of the Minister, and if a competent lawyer makes that proper demand, historically that has very often been enough to get things done. (This does not always mean things go the applicant's way . . . the action CIC/IRCC takes can be to issue RQ, make a referral to a Citizenship Judge, or depending on the reasons perhaps refer the applicant to CBSA or RCMP for further investigation or even deny the application.)

It is worth noting that these days, for the last two plus years, in citizenship cases there have been very, very FEW applications for the Writ of Mandamus resulting in a favourable Federal Court decision. A clue one might say.

Hello and thanks for all these information!
(Historical Note: In the past, for example, there were many signs that CIC was deliberately not proceeding ahead with applications if CIC perceived the applicant was living or working abroad while the application was in process. There was no legal authority for CIC to do this. Nor is there legal authority for IRCC to do this now. BUT more than a few have the sense that even now, if IRCC perceives the applicant is living or working abroad, there may be some deliberate stalling. If this is what is happening, an applicant might get things moving by merely initiating the process to pursue a Writ of Mandamus without actually making an application to the Federal Court.)
I strongly belive that that is case for me and I wish to really get things moved. Do you have an idea on how much it will cost me to get helped by a lawyer?
Regards

 

[dpenabill]

Hello and thanks for all these information!
(Historical Note: In the past, for example, there were many signs that CIC was deliberately not proceeding ahead with applications if CIC perceived the applicant was living or working abroad while the application was in process. There was no legal authority for CIC to do this. Nor is there legal authority for IRCC to do this now. BUT more than a few have the sense that even now, if IRCC perceives the applicant is living or working abroad, there may be some deliberate stalling. If this is what is happening, an applicant might get things moving by merely initiating the process to pursue a Writ of Mandamus without actually making an application to the Federal Court.)
I strongly belive that that is case for me and I wish to really get things moved. Do you have an idea on how much it will cost me to get helped by a lawyer?
Regards

To actually pursue an application for a Writ of Mandamus it appears likely the cost will be in the thousands of dollars, perhaps several thousand dollars. I say this based on reports here over time, not from personal experience. I know Canadian lawyers tend to be expensive, but I have no direct knowledge of how much something like this will cost.

It may be prudent to spend $400 to $600 or so to obtain a formal, case-specific consultation with a lawyer before deciding how to proceed.

The difficulty is finding a competent, reputable, lawyer experienced in citizenship residency or presence cases. And for this to be of real use you probably need to submit copies of everything to the lawyer (copy of application and RQ response at the very least) and meet in person with the lawyer.

In the other topic you report that it was indeed a CIT 0171 RQ you were issued and responded to. If your application is in queue for a referral to a Citizenship Judge, for a hearing to determine if you met your burden of proving your presence in Canada, that is indeed one of the longer processing timeline situations. Mandamus relief is not likely. (Mandamus is not a means of accelerating processing; it is an application to the Federal Court to Order the Minister to do what the law clearly mandates the Minister to do . . . so if IRCC is proceeding with the application in an appropriate processing stream, that is all the law requires, no Mandamus available. So if your application is simply in a queue waiting for a referral to a Citizenship Judge, or waiting for a hearing with the Citizenship Judge, the Federal Court will have no basis to order the Minister to take any other action.)

A prudent preliminary step to take is to make the ATIP application for a copy of your application records, requesting a copy of the physical file. I do not recall the particular procedure for doing this but it may require you to be IN Canada.

If you are living outside Canada REMEMBER that you must continue to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. I have NOT seen any recent reports of applications being delayed so long as to cause an applicant living abroad to breach the RO, not for several years now, but that was a common problem in the past: CIC (before it became IRCC in 2015) seemed to stall processing the application long enough for an applicant outside Canada to run into PR RO compliance issues, and if that happens before the applicant actually takes the oath and the PR is determined to be inadmissible, that means they are NO longer eligible for citizenship so the citizenship application is denied. In the past this happened to some who had been scheduled for the oath but upon coming to Canada were issued Departure Orders instead. Again, I have NOT seen any reports of IRCC doing this in recent years, but a particular applicant could still run into this problem if processing is delayed a long time for a reason, like having a RQ'd presence-case that is being referred to a Citizenship Judge.

 

[Liman1]

The difficulty is finding a competent, reputable, lawyer experienced in citizenship residency or presence cases. And for this to be of real use you probably need to submit copies of everything to the lawyer (copy of application and RQ response at the very least) and meet in person with the lawyer.

In the other topic you report that it was indeed a CIT 0171 RQ you were issued and responded to. If your application is in queue for a referral to a Citizenship Judge, for a hearing to determine if you met your burden of proving your presence in Canada, that is indeed one of the longer processing timeline situations. Mandamus relief is not likely. (Mandamus is not a means of accelerating processing; it is an application to the Federal Court to Order the Minister to do what the law clearly mandates the Minister to do . . . so if IRCC is proceeding with the application in an appropriate processing stream, that is all the law requires, no Mandamus available. So if your application is simply in a queue waiting for a referral to a Citizenship Judge, or waiting for a hearing with the Citizenship Judge, the Federal Court will have no basis to order the Minister to take any other action.)

A prudent preliminary step to take is to make the ATIP application for a copy of your application records, requesting a copy of the physical file. I do not recall the particular procedure for doing this but it may require you to be IN Canada.

If you are living outside Canada REMEMBER that you must continue to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. I have NOT seen any recent reports of applications being delayed so long as to cause an applicant living abroad to breach the RO, not for several years now, but that was a common problem in the past: CIC (before it became IRCC in 2015) seemed to stall processing the application long enough for an applicant outside Canada to run into PR RO compliance issues, and if that happens before the applicant actually takes the oath and the PR is determined to be inadmissible, that means they are NO longer eligible for citizenship so the citizenship application is denied. In the past this happened to some who had been scheduled for the oath but upon coming to Canada were issued Departure Orders instead. Again, I have NOT seen any reports of IRCC doing this in recent years, but a particular applicant could still run into this problem if processing is delayed a long time for a reason, like having a RQ'd presence-case that is being referred to a Citizenship Judge.

Thank you so much , really appreciate, very helpfull.
I appreciate again if could give some hilight on avrage timiline for the these two scenari:
- In a queue waiting for a referral to a Citizenship Judge,
- or waiting for a hearing with the Citizenship Judge

With the best wishes,

 

[dpenabill]

if could give some hilight on avrage timiline for the these two scenari:
- In a queue waiting for a referral to a Citizenship Judge,
- or waiting for a hearing with the Citizenship Judge

UPFRONT: Given the full-blown RQ, it is fairly likely that your application is taking so long due to RQ-related non-routine processing . . . and the amount of time past now suggests your application may indeed be in a processing stream headed toward the preparation of a referral to a CJ (Citizenship Judge). THAT said, this is NOT for sure the reason why things are taking so long. Among other possible reasons for extra-long processing timelines, there can be security-related concerns, or other prohibition-related concerns.

THUS, while it appears likely your application is bogged down in contested-presence (RQ-related) processing, this is NOT for-sure what is happening.


Contested RQ'd Application Processing, Generally:

There is no "average" time line information available for RQ-related non-routine processing. For a few years now there have been rather few RQ-challenged cases reported in the forum. And Federal Court decisions about such cases have been very few, almost rare, for several years now. Most of the RQ'd reports in the forum involve RQ-lite (the CIT 0520 form) or those subjected to a Quality Assurance program that appears to have been temporary. And while the timelines for these applicants varied widely, I have not seen more than isolated reports about any going nearly as long as your application has been in process.

BUT I am not following the spreadsheets much these days. I am not familiar with a spreadsheet specifically for RQ'd applicants. So I do not know if there is more information available in the forum or forum connected spreadsheets which someone could cull for patterns or trends.

There are so few reports of full-blown RQ these days it does not seem worth scanning through all the timeline related posts in other topics for information directly related to the RQ'd cases.

Be good if someone made that effort and reported their conclusions, but given how few forum participants are reporting getting full blown RQ, let alone getting bogged down in waiting a long time after responding to the RQ, it is not likely much useful data will be found. Moreover, there seems to be rather scant follow-up reporting here from RQ'd applicants, leaving the forum in the dark as to outcomes.

Among the very few RQ-challenged cases (meaning those cases in which it appears that IRCC is not satisfied with the response to the RQ) forum participants have reported, for a long while now (years) nearly all of those appear to involve situations in which it is fairly clear the applicant missed the minimum presence required, typically by just a day or week due to an oversight when making the application. Those cases have been easy to predict because IRCC does NOT have any authority to grant citizenship if the applicant is even just one day short. Those applicants should either withdraw and start over, or they will encounter a year or more of waiting only to have a Citizenship Judge deny their application.


YOUR APPLICATION:

Reminder/caveat: it is NOT for-sure your application is tangled in RQ-related non-routine processing now.

Even assuming the holdup is contested-presence-case procedures . . . . I do not know what stage of the process you are actually at. Again, an ATIP request for a copy of your records, including the physical file, might illuminate more.

My GUESS (emphasizing it is a guess, a somewhat informed guess so not merely speculation, but just a guess nonetheless) . . . my guess is that there can be a lengthy queue waiting for a Citizenship Officer to make a definitive decision about whether the officer is "satisfied" the applicant has met the burden of proving presence. That is, it appears to me that there is a sort of preliminary review of the RQ'd applicant's submissions in response to the RQ, so that if whatever questions IRCC had about the applicant's presence are satisfactorily answered, the application is in effect approved and goes back into a processing stream for scheduling the oath. If the officer still has questions at this step, in the initial review of the response to RQ, THEN the application goes into a queue for a more thorough review and preparation of the referral to a Citizenship Judge, using a FTP (File Preparation Template) (or a more current version).

The latter is a part of the process I do not need to guess about. If the Citizenship Officer is not satisfied based on available information in conjunction with the applicant's submissions (including the application and original presence calculation, plus submissions in response to the RQ), the Citizenship Officer uses the FTP to prepare the referral to a CJ. It is possible that in preparing the referral, that is in completing the documentation pursuant to the FTP, the Citizenship Officer concludes the applicant has sufficiently shown actual presence and decides to grant citizenship rather than actually make the referral. This is possible because this is the step in which the Citizenship Officer is most intently reviewing all the information.

We do NOT know how long it takes for such an application to go from being put into a queue for the FTP referral to when the responsible Citizenship Officer actually does the work and makes the decision about whether to grant citizenship or actually send the referral to a CJ. It is clear this queue is lengthy, at least many months.

Your application could still be in that phase. Still in queue waiting for a Citizenship Officer to open the file again and actually work on making the referral, and making the decisions involved in that process. Like most aspects of the citizenship application process, the length of time involved is time in the queue. I do not know whether Citizenship Officers are allotted an hour or three hours to do this work on a file, or whether this process could involve some start-and-wait steps pending requests to other departments or agencies for information, but the bulk of the time is due to the file sitting in a queue waiting for the Citizenship Officer to actually do the FTP referral work.

As far as I know, there is NO notice or status change which will inform the applicant when this step is done. Indeed, there is no notice or status change alerting applicants their application has been diverted to this particular non-routine procedure.

So there is nothing to tell you that your application is at this stage. Nothing to inform you when the application has passed this stage.

The next step, once the Citizenship Officer has made a definitive decision to refer the application to a Citizenship Judge (meaning the officer is NOT satisfied the applicant has met the burden of proving sufficient presence to meet the requirement), when the referral prepared using the FTP is complete, is to then put the application into a queue for a CJ hearing. We have no idea what current timelines are for this. Months? A year? We do not know. Again, there has been very little reporting about applications going through this process in recent years.

Historically, going back six to ten years, there was a lot of reporting about this. But those were *residency* cases NOT *presence* cases. Since the change in law to implement an actual physical presence requirement, rather than a residency requirement, there have been way, way, way fewer contested cases.

 

[Liman1]

UPFRONT: Given the full-blown RQ, it is fairly likely that your application is taking so long due to RQ-related non-routine processing . . . and the amount of time past now suggests your application may indeed be in a processing stream headed toward the preparation of a referral to a CJ (Citizenship Judge). THAT said, this is NOT for sure the reason why things are taking so long. Among other possible reasons for extra-long processing timelines, there can be security-related concerns, or other prohibition-related concerns.

THUS, while it appears likely your application is bogged down in contested-presence (RQ-related) processing, this is NOT for-sure what is happening.


Contested RQ'd Application Processing, Generally:

There is no "average" time line information available for RQ-related non-routine processing. For a few years now there have been rather few RQ-challenged cases reported in the forum. And Federal Court decisions about such cases have been very few, almost rare, for several years now. Most of the RQ'd reports in the forum involve RQ-lite (the CIT 0520 form) or those subjected to a Quality Assurance program that appears to have been temporary. And while the timelines for these applicants varied widely, I have not seen more than isolated reports about any going nearly as long as your application has been in process.

BUT I am not following the spreadsheets much these days. I am not familiar with a spreadsheet specifically for RQ'd applicants. So I do not know if there is more information available in the forum or forum connected spreadsheets which someone could cull for patterns or trends.

There are so few reports of full-blown RQ these days it does not seem worth scanning through all the timeline related posts in other topics for information directly related to the RQ'd cases.

Be good if someone made that effort and reported their conclusions, but given how few forum participants are reporting getting full blown RQ, let alone getting bogged down in waiting a long time after responding to the RQ, it is not likely much useful data will be found. Moreover, there seems to be rather scant follow-up reporting here from RQ'd applicants, leaving the forum in the dark as to outcomes.

Among the very few RQ-challenged cases (meaning those cases in which it appears that IRCC is not satisfied with the response to the RQ) forum participants have reported, for a long while now (years) nearly all of those appear to involve situations in which it is fairly clear the applicant missed the minimum presence required, typically by just a day or week due to an oversight when making the application. Those cases have been easy to predict because IRCC does NOT have any authority to grant citizenship if the applicant is even just one day short. Those applicants should either withdraw and start over, or they will encounter a year or more of waiting only to have a Citizenship Judge deny their application.


YOUR APPLICATION:

Reminder/caveat: it is NOT for-sure your application is tangled in RQ-related non-routine processing now.

Even assuming the holdup is contested-presence-case procedures . . . . I do not know what stage of the process you are actually at. Again, an ATIP request for a copy of your records, including the physical file, might illuminate more.

My GUESS (emphasizing it is a guess, a somewhat informed guess so not merely speculation, but just a guess nonetheless) . . . my guess is that there can be a lengthy queue waiting for a Citizenship Officer to make a definitive decision about whether the officer is "satisfied" the applicant has met the burden of proving presence. That is, it appears to me that there is a sort of preliminary review of the RQ'd applicant's submissions in response to the RQ, so that if whatever questions IRCC had about the applicant's presence are satisfactorily answered, the application is in effect approved and goes back into a processing stream for scheduling the oath. If the officer still has questions at this step, in the initial review of the response to RQ, THEN the application goes into a queue for a more thorough review and preparation of the referral to a Citizenship Judge, using a FTP (File Preparation Template) (or a more current version).

The latter is a part of the process I do not need to guess about. If the Citizenship Officer is not satisfied based on available information in conjunction with the applicant's submissions (including the application and original presence calculation, plus submissions in response to the RQ), the Citizenship Officer uses the FTP to prepare the referral to a CJ. It is possible that in preparing the referral, that is in completing the documentation pursuant to the FTP, the Citizenship Officer concludes the applicant has sufficiently shown actual presence and decides to grant citizenship rather than actually make the referral. This is possible because this is the step in which the Citizenship Officer is most intently reviewing all the information.

We do NOT know how long it takes for such an application to go from being put into a queue for the FTP referral to when the responsible Citizenship Officer actually does the work and makes the decision about whether to grant citizenship or actually send the referral to a CJ. It is clear this queue is lengthy, at least many months.

Your application could still be in that phase. Still in queue waiting for a Citizenship Officer to open the file again and actually work on making the referral, and making the decisions involved in that process. Like most aspects of the citizenship application process, the length of time involved is time in the queue. I do not know whether Citizenship Officers are allotted an hour or three hours to do this work on a file, or whether this process could involve some start-and-wait steps pending requests to other departments or agencies for information, but the bulk of the time is due to the file sitting in a queue waiting for the Citizenship Officer to actually do the FTP referral work.

As far as I know, there is NO notice or status change which will inform the applicant when this step is done. Indeed, there is no notice or status change alerting applicants their application has been diverted to this particular non-routine procedure.

So there is nothing to tell you that your application is at this stage. Nothing to inform you when the application has passed this stage.

The next step, once the Citizenship Officer has made a definitive decision to refer the application to a Citizenship Judge (meaning the officer is NOT satisfied the applicant has met the burden of proving sufficient presence to meet the requirement), when the referral prepared using the FTP is complete, is to then put the application into a queue for a CJ hearing. We have no idea what current timelines are for this. Months? A year? We do not know. Again, there has been very little reporting about applications going through this process in recent years.

Historically, going back six to ten years, there was a lot of reporting about this. But those were *residency* cases NOT *presence* cases. Since the change in law to implement an actual physical presence requirement, rather than a residency requirement, there have been way, way, way fewer contested cases.

Great thanks, really very informative and helpfull. I will request for t an ATIPt for a copy of my records, including the physical file. I will post for recards.
Again thank you so much!

 

[Liman1]

Hi dpenabill ,
I just received my ATIP it is written: IC from applicant seen. The application is on queue to be analysed level 2 citizenship officer. Do you have idea what this means and how could it take again. for recall I pass my test on october 2018. there is also a kind of contradiction from officer, the application was place in priority file in july 2019 and non-routine by another officer. Is level 2 officer similar to citizenship judge ? if not can my application be forward to a judge by the level 2 officer?
thank you so much for your helpful answers.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi dpenabill ,
I just received my ATIP it is written: IC from applicant seen. The application is on queue to be analysed level 2 citizenship officer. Do you have idea what this means and how could it take again. for recall I pass my test on october 2018. there is also a kind of contradiction from officer, the application was place in priority file in july 2019 and non-routine by another officer. Is level 2 officer similar to citizenship judge ? if not can my application be forward to a judge by the level 2 officer?
thank you so much for your helpful answers.

I do NOT know what a reference to a "level 2" citizenship officer means. My sense is this is probably a Citizenship Officer who reviews RQ cases for which IRCC is NOT satisfied the applicant's information meets the burden of proving actual physical presence for at least 1095 days. But I do not know this for sure.

Given the amount of time that has passed, as I was suggesting in my previous long post, it appears the file has been in a queue for a Citizenship Officer to at least do the analysis attendant completing the report or referral using the File Preparation Template, which is what is used to refer the case to a Citizenship Judge. Whether or not this means the case is for-sure headed to a Citizenship Judge, I do NOT know.

Note, in the previous post I transposed letters in the acronym for File Preparation Template: "FTP" should be "FPT."

What you report based on the ATIP response appears to support the "guess" I offered in my previous post, in the part under the heading "YOUR APPLICATION" and my observations following "My GUESS (emphasizing it is a guess, a somewhat informed guess so not merely speculation, but just a guess nonetheless) . . . my guess is . . . "

That is to say, even though I am NOT certain that "guess" is correct, the ATIP response tends to indicate this is likely what is happening.

A big question I do NOT have an answer for is whether or not, at this stage, there is still a possibility the Citizenship Officer could approve the application rather than make the referral to a Citizenship Judge. My sense is you are probably in queue for a referral to a CJ.

As for the time line, NO, I have no clue what the time line looks like for these cases now. Back in mid-February I don't think I was anticipating anywhere near the impact the covid-19 process would have on processing time lines. Whatever lengthy time line could be anticipated in the contested-presence-case then, ADD to that the impact of the covid-19 crisis. Does not look good. There has been little hint that much progress has been made processing even the most routine cases during the last three months, with little or no promise things will be picking up speed anytime soon.

It seems quite likely that in the current situation, you are NOT likely to see much progress anytime soon. Maybe you will. It has been long enough. But given the extent to which routine processing is currently stalled, and the tendency of IRCC to not give much priority for processing non-routine cases, generally let alone outright contested cases, best guess is that this is going to remain in queue for some time more, and perhaps quite some time more.


NOTE:

I do not recall seeing or discussing merit related aspects of your case . . . how much of a margin over the minimum you had when applying, what factors or circumstances might be raising questions in your case, to what extent you relied on pre-PR days in Canada, among others. YOU might want to review such aspects of your case for yourself in order to decide how to proceed.

 

[Liman1]

Again thank you very much for the answer. I will continue to monitor the application and hoping that I will receive a decision at a good moment for me.