So today I unfortunately join the "100+ Days of IP Club."

[itsmyid]

With Trump's immigration policy, there will be an increase of people cross over from the states into Canada...

That may be true , but first that’s the job of border security agent to screen them, and second the immigrant minister had just announced that illegal crossing is not welcomed and will be subject to deportation

 

[Danielnases]

took me 110 days from test to DM

 

[ZingyDNA]

That may be true , but first that’s the job of border security agent to screen them, and second the immigrant minister had just announced that illegal crossing is not welcomed and will be subject to deportation

I really hope that's true!

 

[ZingyDNA]

took me 110 days from test to DM

This thread is about people who went In Process and haven't got test invite yet.

 

[dpenabill]

I seem to remember the 12 months is for 80% or 90% of the applications to be completed? Anyhow, they must have done some statistical analysis to come up with that number as they can't just pull that out of their behind. Maybe they also have a disclaimer like the investment products I buy: "Past performance doesn't indicate future results"? I'm not sure the same standards should be applied for those two matters, though.

IRCC's posted timeline is explicitly based on how long applications took in the PAST and does NOT purport to tell applicants how long it will take for their application to be processed. The IRCC web page currently showing "12 month(s)" as the timeline for applications made after April 1, 2015, states:

"Processing times tell you how long it took us to process applications in the past after receiving a complete application package."​

For emphasis: "how long it took . . . in the past . . . "

In other topics (and in other forums as well) I have gone into detail about the history of CIC and IRCC posted timelines, and the dramatic decline in transparency that began under Harper's government and, unfortunately, continues to decline under the current Liberal government. A decade ago (yes, I have been following this that long) there were many, many statistics readily accessible by the public, including how long it had taken (in a given year) to process, respectively, 20%, 50%, and 80% of routinely processed applications (and thus, back then, it was easy to see the contrast between how long it took for those processed faster compared to how long it took for most, as in half plus one, compared to how long it took for many more), in conjunction with specific numbers for how many applications were submitted per quarter of the year, how many hearings there were with Citizenship Judges, how many applications were granted, how many were denied, how many appeals had been filed by applicants, by the government, how many applications for mandamus had been filed, and numbers as to the outcomes of those judicial applications (appeals and writ applications, including withdrawn applications of which there were many). There used to be an annual report published by Citizenship Judges detailing all sorts of information about the process, outcomes, number and type of cases processed per judge.

IRCC's current information indicates but does not definitively state that the currently published timeline is based on how long it took for 80% of applications, or routinely processed applications, to be processed in the "past," without being specific about when that was. Not too long ago the website was more specific, and did definitively state that the posted timeline was based on how long it took to process 80% of ROUTINELY processed applications. Since then, however, IRCC has dropped the routine versus non-routine distinction, at least in what information it provides the public, and is more vague about what statistics its posted timeline is derived from.

IRCC links to answers for "top questions about processing times" go to generic almost non-informational general descriptions about processing times mostly about visa office processing NOT citizenship application processing. Part of the continuing trend to be less and less transparent. Little substantive information. Lots of glib, superficial description which typically illuminates little or nothing.

ALL of WHICH I UNDERSTAND CONTRIBUTES TO MANY PR'S FRUSTRATIONS. Unfortunately this trend toward declining transparency appears to be deeply entrenched in most Western Democratic governments . . . what the government does, how it does it, and why, is increasingly deemed "classified," "confidential," or otherwise secret, while at the same time the gathering and compilation and organization and sharing of real numbers has also declined, somewhat due to funding constraints of course, but a lot to do with less priority given to informing the public. While a few European governments have somewhat bucked the trend, around the globe most governments are almost racing in this direction, with the U.S. leading the way in all too many respects (as usual, unfortunately).

 

[itsmyid]

IRCC's posted timeline is explicitly based on how long applications took in the PAST and does NOT purport to tell applicants how long it will take for their application to be processed. The IRCC web page currently showing "12 month(s)" as the timeline for applications made after April 1, 2015, states:

"Processing times tell you how long it took us to process applications in the past after receiving a complete application package."​

For emphasis: "how long it took . . . in the past . . . "

In other topics (and in other forums as well) I have gone into detail about the history of CIC and IRCC posted timelines, and the dramatic decline in transparency that began under Harper's government and, unfortunately, continues to decline under the current Liberal government. A decade ago (yes, I have been following this that long) there were many, many statistics readily accessible by the public, including how long it had taken (in a given year) to process, respectively, 20%, 50%, and 80% of routinely processed applications (and thus, back then, it was easy to see the contrast between how long it took for those processed faster compared to how long it took for most, as in half plus one, compared to how long it took for many more), in conjunction with specific numbers for how many applications were submitted per quarter of the year, how many hearings there were with Citizenship Judges, how many applications were granted, how many were denied, how many appeals had been filed by applicants, by the government, how many applications for mandamus had been filed, and numbers as to the outcomes of those judicial applications (appeals and writ applications, including withdrawn applications of which there were many). There used to be an annual report published by Citizenship Judges detailing all sorts of information about the process, outcomes, number and type of cases processed per judge.

IRCC's current information indicates but does not definitively state that the currently published timeline is based on how long it took for 80% of applications, or routinely processed applications, to be processed in the "past," without being specific about when that was. Not too long ago the website was more specific, and did definitively state that the posted timeline was based on how long it took to process 80% of ROUTINELY processed applications. Since then, however, IRCC has dropped the routine versus non-routine distinction, at least in what information it provides the public, and is more vague about what statistics its posted timeline is derived from.

IRCC links to answers for "top questions about processing times" go to generic almost non-informational general descriptions about processing times mostly about visa office processing NOT citizenship application processing. Part of the continuing trend to be less and less transparent. Little substantive information. Lots of glib, superficial description which typically illuminates little or nothing.

ALL of WHICH I UNDERSTAND CONTRIBUTES TO MANY PR'S FRUSTRATIONS. Unfortunately this trend toward declining transparency appears to be deeply entrenched in most Western Democratic governments . . . what the government does, how it does it, and why, is increasingly deemed "classified," "confidential," or otherwise secret, while at the same time the gathering and compilation and organization and sharing of real numbers has also declined, somewhat due to funding constraints of course, but a lot to do with less priority given to informing the public. While a few European governments have somewhat bucked the trend, around the globe most governments are almost racing in this direction, with the U.S. leading the way in all too many respects (as usual, unfortunately).

Just relax ... people are just here to vent, doesn’t really mean they expect anything to change or happen soon

 

[dpenabill]

While this thread is focused on the timeline between IP and being scheduled for the test/interview, to better understand the vagaries of that timeline and its impact, it is helpful to understand its context relative to the timeline for other stages of processing.

I would have agreed with the waiting in queue part had I not seen two people who submitted at the same time to the same office, one became a citizen in 4 months while the other is still waiting.

It appears you may have misunderstood my observations. I emphasized that the timeline varies greatly. Moreover, I distinguished what sort of factors have a timeline impact AT DIFFERENT STAGES of the process. Moreover, as to the bulk of how long it takes for an individual applicant, I explicitly referenced MOST applicants NOT ALL APPLICANTS.

The latter alludes to one of the more common problems in this forum: a tendency to measure how it goes for one to indicate how it will go for others, and the converse, how it goes for many or most as defining how it will go for a particular individual. IN CONTRAST, there is much variability. For example, what you describe is very common: one person experiencing a very different process, especially as to the timeline, compared to another even though they superficially appear to have very similar cases.


KEY TIMELINE FACTOR TAKEAWAYS:

-- Between AOR and IP: There appears to be significant variation in the timeline between AOR and IP, which appears to be about internal screening in Sydney. I have discussed this in depth in other topics (which includes quite a bit of speculation derived from past information applied to sketchy details about current process; part of the declining transparency trend). Individual applicant factors will quite likely influence how long this timeline is (example: for some their presence-calculation travel history will likely trigger inquiry into CBSA travel history database; just one factor among many).

-- Between IP and PI Interview: Again, the bulk of the timeline for MOST (not all) applicants is the time the application sits in a queue between IP and the test/interview, and this is mostly about when the local office processing agent picks up and deals with the application; this timeline varies and can vary a lot, but the factors influencing how long the wait in this queue is are less about the individual applicant than what influences the timeline during other stages of processing. Virtually NOTHING an applicant can do to accelerate this timeline.

-- -- Sidebar re when application shows up in local office: There has also been some anecdotal reporting suggesting some applicants are experiencing a variable gap in time between IP and when the application shows up in a local office. My strong sense is this is merely a matter of appearances. As I have observed elsewhere, this is likely similar to the gap between when the courier delivers the application to Sydney and the date IRCC gives AOR: the application really is in Sydney, but has not been opened/entered as such. Thus, similarly, during a gap in time between IP and IRCC (or GCMS) affirmatively showing the application as in the local office, the case is actually "in" the local office but not opened/entered as such yet.
​

-- Between Interview/test and Decision Made: There is clearly wide, wide variation in the timeline between the test and DM, ranging from applicants who are approved and who take the oath the same day (or within a day or three; mine was within two days) to scores of applicants who wait one, two, five, or more months for a decision to be made. Individual applicant factors undoubtedly play a big role in this timeline. For applicants issued requests for more documents after the interview, obviously there is going to be a longer timeline. Potentially much longer. But factors unrelated to the individual applicant can also have an impact on how long this timeline is. Obviously, non-routine processing can have a big impact on this timeline.

-- Between DM and Oath: This timeline too will vary. This timeline likewise varies from same or within a couple days, to sometimes months. Difficult to discern what factors influence this part of the timeline. Obviously, local office scheduling factors have a big influence. But there appears to be other factors affecting this timeline as well.

-- Distinguishing/emphasizing some factors: While the bulk of the timeline for MOST applicants is the wait between IP and the test/interview, and again this timeline varies, some of the biggest variations in timeline occur between the test/interview and when there is a Decision Made. This is the stage in which non-routine elements are more likely to have a big impact on the timeline.​

Comment about IRCC reporting the application is waiting for "clearances:"

I do NOT know for sure, but I strongly sense that when call centre agents say that the application is waiting for clearances, that is often if not usually misleading. My sense is that processing agents may not log the clearances complete when they are received, as such (remember, much of this is done by updating digital database), so that it APPEARS the file does not have the necessary clearances as yet (similarly for client obtained copy of GCMS notes). Rather, the file is waiting for the processing agent (or Citizenship Officer) to take the next step, and as part of that next step the agent or officer will log the clearances into GCMS as complete.

The reason to highlight this is that this approach, by IRCC, tends to cause some applicants to unnecessarily worry there is some kind of background clearance issue holding them up when again it is just a matter of the file sitting in a queue waiting for the next step to be taken. For some, sure, there is an issue, perhaps a problem. BUT for the vast majority, no, no reason to worry, no reason to apprehend there is a hold up in getting the background clearances, it is just more BUREAUCRATIC waiting in queue, and waiting some more.

 

[dpenabill]

Just relax ... people are just here to vent, doesn’t really mean they expect anything to change or happen soon

Unfortunately a lot of the venting (much if not most of which is unwarranted) . . . and what really is hyper-attention to insignificant incremental steps . . . is contributing to increased (and unnecessary) worry among other applicants which also is contributing to more applicants making UNNECESSARY calls to the call centre.

It is NOT fair to incite qualified applicants to have unnecessary anxiety about how long it is taking to process their case.

It is ESPECIALLY NOT FAIR to incite more applicants to make UNNECESSARY telephone queries since there are scores and scores of clients, including citizenship applicants, who have real and oft times serious questions AND THEY ARE HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING THROUGH given the volume of calls . . . which based on a lot of posts in this forum are clearly UNNECESSARY.

A lot of PRs applying for citizenship have day time jobs which make it difficult to make the call to the call centre even when the call centre is not bogged down with voluminous, nonsense, frivolous calls. This forum is rife with reports from participants who hog the call centre lines asking about the status of their case even though IRCC has not had it even eight or ten months yet . . . many calling when it has not even been five or six months let alone eight or ten.

IRCC has limited resources. Many are likely to see the impact of this in the coming months as IRCC struggles to deal with the huge volume of post C-6 applications. It would be nice to see some citizenship like civic mindfulness and consideration given to the many applicants and prospective applicants with real questions, real issues, who need to get through to the call centre.

 

[screech339]

Oh buddy, I'm so sorry to hear that. I can only imagine the stages and degrees of frustration and anguish that you'll have been through by now.

On this, my 100th day of IP, and yet sans a test/interview invitation, I've undertaken a new tack, and will report back to the forum in due course.

As in everything, one has to be prepared to do one's homework, and not be afraid to advocate for one's self.

I can sincerely hope that your own application will move in the system shortly, as you deserve progress after having waited so patiently for so long.

Thanks for your concern. I hope the application will process soon if the liberals wants to maintain the 1 year timeline for citizenship, However we are not stressed over it. Patience is a virtue. Only those who want to leave Canada after obtaining citizenship are usually the ones stressed over it.

 

[zardoz]

Thanks for your concern. I hope the application will process soon if the liberals wants to maintain the 1 year timeline for citizenship, However we are not stressed over it. Patience is a virtue. Only those who want to leave Canada after obtaining citizenship are usually the ones stressed over it.

There is one other group... Those whose PR cards are nearing expiry date and don't want the hassle of renewing them.

 

[itsmyid]

There is one other group... Those whose PR cards are nearing expiry date and don't want the hassle of renewing them.

I guess his response would be 'that means they want to leave Canada, otherwise why would they need their PR card for if they just stay?', since "Only those who want to leave Canada after obtaining citizenship are usually the ones stressed over it."

 

[zardoz]

I guess his response would be 'that means they want to leave Canada, otherwise why would they need their PR card for if they just stay?', since "Only those who want to leave Canada after obtaining citizenship are usually the ones stressed over it."

It's "be able to leave Canada AND return" for vacation/work or if a family emergency occurred elsewhere, such as a wedding or a funeral. No immediate intent to leave but having the opportunity to do so.

 

[itsmyid]

It's "be able to leave Canada AND return" for vacation/work or if a family emergency occurred elsewhere, such as a wedding or a funeral. No immediate intent to leave but having the opportunity to do so.

I fully agree... and people who are trying to get government jobs, trying to vote in the provincial election next week , the list goes on and on ...Doesn’t matter to him though

 

[screech339]

I fully agree... and people who are trying to get government jobs, trying to vote in the provincial election next week , the list goes on and on ...Doesn’t matter to him though

Government jobs : They can start applying for government jobs once they obtain citizenship.
Voting: They can get their turn to vote after they obtain citizenship, regardless of when the election occurs. Elections usually occur every 4 years or less. Depending on what election it is. Not once in a lifetime.
Vacation: Citizenship have no effect on their vacation plans. Key word "Vacation". In other words leave temporarily for 2-3 weeks time. Not leave and return only for test and oath. They can still leave and re-enter Canada without any issues as PR while waiting for citizenship.

If they are stressed about applying for government jobs before getting citizenship or whether to vote in the next week to vote in Ontario election, they need to re-examine their life priorities.

 

[itsmyid]

Government jobs : They can start applying for government jobs once they obtain citizenship.
Voting: They can get their turn to vote after they obtain citizenship, regardless of when the election occurs. Elections usually occur every 4 years or less. Depending on what election it is. Not once in a lifetime.

If they are stressed about applying for government jobs before getting citizenship or whether to vote in the next week to vote in Ontario election, they need to re-examine their life priorities.

That may not be your priority, but this time PC and NDP are neck to neck and any extra votes from either side could change the course of this province for the next 4 years or even longer, and affect their lives in profound ways - so yeah it is a priority for many people who care about this! I was at an outdoor citizenship ceremony a few days ago, and many people said to the judge that they were so glad they got this in time just for next week's voting - it’s ok it’s not your priority, but who do you think you are that you can judge other people’s priority and give uninvited advice (like anybody gives a damn )? Lol