October 11th 2017 - Citizenship Applicants under 3/5 rule

[dpenabill]

I fully understand that some people might want to help by justifying what IRRCC does . . .

While I do not speak for anyone else, to be clear my posts are IN NO WAY about "justifying" what IRCC does. I do my best to analyze and explain what I know about how the process works, and hopefully provide information which will help some better navigate the process or at least better understand what is happening.

I do not claim to entirely let alone perfectly know how the process works, and indeed there is a great deal I do not know. There is a great deal about the process which is confidential and not disclosed to the public.

In contrast, there is a steady stream of misleading, oft times outright false information about the process spewed in this forum. For example:

Experience shows that almost everything depends on the agent that handles the case.

This is NOT at all true. How it goes in an individual case depends far, far more on the particular information, the facts, in that case. This is readily illustrated by the fact that the process flows roughly similarly for the vast majority of qualified applicants who submitted a proper, complete, and accurate application which readily indicates, on its face, the applicant is qualified. Sure, the actual timeline in the specific case varies considerably, but the vast majority of these applicants will go through the entire process within a range that is APPROXIMATELY two to three times as long as the fastest timeline for a sizable share of them.

This varies.

In particular, while it probably is not far off the long term general range, this too is not correct:

A case normally does not take more than 9 to 12 months to process even if it’s a complex case and after doing all the checks and clearances.

To be clear, when I applied for citizenship, complex cases, and more than a few routine cases, were generally taking LONGER than TWO YEARS. Many RQ'd cases were in process THREE YEARS and longer. In contrast, during periods of time not involving backlogs or circumstances otherwise causing major slowdowns in processing, the median timeline has often dropped to six to eight months.

But historically the median timeline has varied and varied rather extensively. There have been many periods of time when something or other has dramatically slowed the process, such as currently it is apparent that IRCC is still adjusting to the huge influx of applications in the last quarter of 2017 and a general increase in the number of applications throughout the year. In contrast, there have been other periods of time when something has resulted in much faster timelines, such as in late 2015 and into 2016 when the flow of new applications declined to a mere trickle due to the changes dramatically reducing the pool of qualified applicants implemented in June 2015.

So, basically any case that has gone over 12 months (with very very few exceptions) is either being handled by one of those useless agents or is not being worked on at all.

This statement is largely true. But that is specifically dependent on it being in the disjunctive (and it is the valid second disjunct which makes this statement true). That is, it is true because for all but maybe two or five days in the entire process, any given application is "not being worked on at all," because it is simply sitting in a queue. Waiting. Nobody taking any action on it at the time. For weeks and months at a time.

It is NOT likely there is more than an isolated "useless agent." (Otherwise, gratuitous slurs are what they are, and not worth much.)

And while there are, undoubtedly, occasions in which applications are slowed down by this or that agent's incompetence or neglect or mistake (as my signature states: "Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does . . .") the longer timelines are nonetheless still about the amount of time the application is in queue. Anyone who has worked with government agencies much, let alone in government, is well acquainted with how this goes. In fact, experience in schools is sufficient, recognizing that even second and third graders generally are familiar with the concept of waiting in line.

Which in the citizenship application process means that any extra task along the way can result in a significantly longer wait, since the extra task often means the application is put into another queue where it will wait until someone does that task, and citizenship application queues tend to be more in the range of months than days or weeks. Thus, even small, quickly done tasks, can add a lot of time to the overall timeline, and these can add up so that one applicant's case takes many months longer than another applicant with a nonetheless rather similar case.


As for the role of the Help Centre Agents:

With some important differences, the IRCC Help Centre agents perform functions roughly similar to call centre, customer service, and help line support services in other contexts. Yes, the standard level of competence in these positions tends to be at the lower end, and the services provided tend to be relatively shallow. But such services are widely used and in many ways relied on, and for many people these services are important.

Relative to inquiries by citizenship applicants they mostly provide:

-- FAQ like responses (which is important for many people who cannot navigate online information and FAQs as easily as the rest of us; many times people do not know what question to ask and need the assistance of a live person to help them frame their question so as to get information they need or directed to a source or form that will be helpful)

-- Status verification queries if and when there is an actual question about status​

Unfortunately, as evidenced by scores and scores of posts in this forum, IRCC is continually besieged by status verification queries which are no more than "Are we there yet?" And yes, again, to the extent this evokes images of impatient children in the backseat on a long road trip, sorry, that is pretty much how it is.

The Help Centre Agents are NOT a good resource for complex questions, hypothetical questions, or questions otherwise dependent on conditional or contingent premises. They may attempt to help, but these kinds of questions are really asking for an OPINION, and that is not their job. Those who want an opinion, whether about their own case, or about a hypothetical situation, should consult with a lawyer. Lawyers like getting paid to espouse opinions.


Additional observation about (erroneous) comments like "Experience shows that almost everything depends on the agent that handles the case."

I do not have a direct quote handy, but in the PR conference someone similarly railing about IRCC incompetence recently complained about the timeline for processing PR card applications, in effect demanding that IRCC do something to improve and accelerate processing timelines. The irony, however, was this person, in the very same post, acknowledged omitting a client number and other information in the PR card application.

Let's be clear: the vast majority of qualified applicants who properly, completely, and accurately submit an application are generally processed in due course . . . the timeline varies, but the vast majority of this group will generally be processed consistently, concurrently, within a range . . . a range which in the past, when we had access to far more detailed information from the government, tended to be within two to three times as long as the fastest group (thus when many report getting through in three to four months, the vast majority get through within six to eight or twelve months).

BUT scores and scores of applicants do NOT make it easy. They leave out important details. Like their client number. Like an overnight trip or three to the States. Like their nicknames. Like failing to check yes in response to item 10.b) when, in contrast, they were actually outside Canada more than 183 days in the previous four years. Like failing to follow this or that instruction. And more than a few applicants make it more difficult to assess their qualifications when they apply within a week or two of barely passing the absolute MINIMUM threshold for qualifying. AND so on. AND so on.

There are applicants who have Green Cards suggesting they might actually be living in the States NOT in Canada.

There are applicants who have spouses working, even living abroad, raising questions about whether the applicant has really been in Canada as is declared (recognizing that spouse more often than not live together).

And so on. And so on.

How it goes in an individual case, to the extent it might vary from the mainstream processing of routine applications, depends far more on the particular applicant, application, and related circumstances and facts, than it does on which processing agent happens to be performing this or that task in the various steps of processing.

 

[itsmyid]

While I do not speak for anyone else, to be clear my posts are IN NO WAY about "justifying" what IRCC does. I do my best to analyze and explain what I know about how the process works, and hopefully provide information which will help some better navigate the process or at least better understand what is happening.

I do not claim to entirely let alone perfectly know how the process works, and indeed there is a great deal I do not know. There is a great deal about the process which is confidential and not disclosed to the public.

In contrast, there is a steady stream of misleading, oft times outright false information about the process spewed in this forum. For example:


This is NOT at all true. How it goes in an individual case depends far, far more on the particular information, the facts, in that case. This is readily illustrated by the fact that the process flows roughly similarly for the vast majority of qualified applicants who submitted a proper, complete, and accurate application which readily indicates, on its face, the applicant is qualified. Sure, the actual timeline in the specific case varies considerably, but the vast majority of these applicants will go through the entire process within a range that is APPROXIMATELY two to three times as long as the fastest timeline for a sizable share of them.

This varies.

In particular, while it probably is not far off the long term general range, this too is not correct:


To be clear, when I applied for citizenship, complex cases, and more than a few routine cases, were generally taking LONGER than TWO YEARS. Many RQ'd cases were in process THREE YEARS and longer. In contrast, during periods of time not involving backlogs or circumstances otherwise causing major slowdowns in processing, the median timeline has often dropped to six to eight months.

But historically the median timeline has varied and varied rather extensively. There have been many periods of time when something or other has dramatically slowed the process, such as currently it is apparent that IRCC is still adjusting to the huge influx of applications in the last quarter of 2017 and a general increase in the number of applications throughout the year. In contrast, there have been other periods of time when something has resulted in much faster timelines, such as in late 2015 and into 2016 when the flow of new applications declined to a mere trickle due to the changes dramatically reducing the pool of qualified applicants implemented in June 2015.




This statement is largely true. But that is specifically dependent on it being in the disjunctive (and it is the valid second disjunct which makes this statement true). That is, it is true because for all but maybe two or five days in the entire process, any given application is "not being worked on at all," because it is simply sitting in a queue. Waiting. Nobody taking any action on it at the time. For weeks and months at a time.

It is NOT likely there is more than an isolated "useless agent." (Otherwise, gratuitous slurs are what they are, and not worth much.)

And while there are, undoubtedly, occasions in which applications are slowed down by this or that agent's incompetence or neglect or mistake (as my signature states: "Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does . . .") the longer timelines are nonetheless still about the amount of time the application is in queue. Anyone who has worked with government agencies much, let alone in government, is well acquainted with how this goes. In fact, experience in schools is sufficient, recognizing that even second and third graders generally are familiar with the concept of waiting in line.

Which in the citizenship application process means that any extra task along the way can result in a significantly longer wait, since the extra task often means the application is put into another queue where it will wait until someone does that task, and citizenship application queues tend to be more in the range of months than days or weeks. Thus, even small, quickly done tasks, can add a lot of time to the overall timeline, and these can add up so that one applicant's case takes many months longer than another applicant with a nonetheless rather similar case.


As for the role of the Help Centre Agents:

With some important differences, the IRCC Help Centre agents perform functions roughly similar to call centre, customer service, and help line support services in other contexts. Yes, the standard level of competence in these positions tends to be at the lower end, and the services provided tend to be relatively shallow. But such services are widely used and in many ways relied on, and for many people these services are important.

Relative to inquiries by citizenship applicants they mostly provide:

-- FAQ like responses (which is important for many people who cannot navigate online information and FAQs as easily as the rest of us; many times people do not know what question to ask and need the assistance of a live person to help them frame their question so as to get information they need or directed to a source or form that will be helpful)

-- Status verification queries if and when there is an actual question about status​

Unfortunately, as evidenced by scores and scores of posts in this forum, IRCC is continually besieged by status verification queries which are no more than "Are we there yet?" And yes, again, to the extent this evokes images of impatient children in the backseat on a long road trip, sorry, that is pretty much how it is.

The Help Centre Agents are NOT a good resource for complex questions, hypothetical questions, or questions otherwise dependent on conditional or contingent premises. They may attempt to help, but these kinds of questions are really asking for an OPINION, and that is not their job. Those who want an opinion, whether about their own case, or about a hypothetical situation, should consult with a lawyer. Lawyers like getting paid to espouse opinions.


Additional observation about (erroneous) comments like "Experience shows that almost everything depends on the agent that handles the case."

I do not have a direct quote handy, but in the PR conference someone similarly railing about IRCC incompetence recently complained about the timeline for processing PR card applications, in effect demanding that IRCC do something to improve and accelerate processing timelines. The irony, however, was this person, in the very same post, acknowledged omitting a client number and other information in the PR card application.

Let's be clear: the vast majority of qualified applicants who properly, completely, and accurately submit an application are generally processed in due course . . . the timeline varies, but the vast majority of this group will generally be processed consistently, concurrently, within a range . . . a range which in the past, when we had access to far more detailed information from the government, tended to be within two to three times as long as the fastest group (thus when many report getting through in three to four months, the vast majority get through within six to eight or twelve months).

BUT scores and scores of applicants do NOT make it easy. They leave out important details. Like their client number. Like an overnight trip or three to the States. Like their nicknames. Like failing to check yes in response to item 10.b) when, in contrast, they were actually outside Canada more than 183 days in the previous four years. Like failing to follow this or that instruction. And more than a few applicants make it more difficult to assess their qualifications when they apply within a week or two of barely passing the absolute MINIMUM threshold for qualifying. AND so on. AND so on.

There are applicants who have Green Cards suggesting they might actually be living in the States NOT in Canada.

There are applicants who have spouses working, even living abroad, raising questions about whether the applicant has really been in Canada as is declared (recognizing that spouse more often than not live together).

And so on. And so on.

How it goes in an individual case, to the extent it might vary from the mainstream processing of routine applications, depends far more on the particular applicant, application, and related circumstances and facts, than it does on which processing agent happens to be performing this or that task in the various steps of processing.

Well, I know for fact I didn’t leave out anything in my files (I helped 4 people checking their applications and they had all finished their oath even though we applied the same time ), there is nothing unusual and nothing out of ordinary about my case , yet my files were just sitting there month after month with no updates - you claim you are not “justifying “ what they did , but you did exactly just that: blame the victim

 

[dpenabill]

Well, I know for fact I didn’t leave out anything in my files (I helped 4 people checking their applications and they had all finished their oath even though we applied the same time ), there is nothing unusual and nothing out of ordinary about my case , yet my files were just sitting there month after month with no updates - you claim you are not “justifying “ what they did , but you did exactly just that

If you are suggesting that ONE example, yours, shows that the timeline does NOT vary considerably due to a wide range of factors, how one example can possibly show this is utterly beyond my comprehension.

Even just a single mistake, let alone the occasional incidence of incompetence or neglect, which I readily acknowledge is inherent in the processing of citizenship applications (again, my signature states: "Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does") can easily explain a single example.

In the meantime, there is currently, overall, a general slowdown in processing. While there may be additional factors, the huge surge in applications in the fourth quarter of 2017 is probably among the most significant if not predominant factor.

Otherwise, the vast majority of applications proceed through the process relatively concurrently, contemporaneously. The respective timeline for those in the mainstream varies (again, there is currently a general slowdown, and in contrast in later 2015 into 2016 there was a period in which applications were being processed more quickly than historically, due to the fact that the number of new applications slowed to a mere trickle).

Again, I make a concerted effort to discern and discuss what actually happens, how it happens, how sundry variables can affect the process. Yes, more than a few variables can be external to the individual applicant. Yes, some variables have to do with incidental factors, like a file being in queue for a particular processing agent to process and that agent then not handling it (which can happen for many different reasons), so that file happens to go yet again into another queue . . . and as I tried to emphasize, the consequence of even a single diversion into another queue can add MONTHS to that individual's timeline. STUFF HAPPENS.

Sometimes when STUFF HAPPENS yes, it is due to a mistake or neglect or incompetence. Other times it is due to circumstances affecting all applications similarly. Sometimes it is specific to the individual.

BUT explaining why this or that happened in your particular case will NOT explain or illuminate much about how things usually work, generally work. Karma? I cannot say so. Not sure I even believe in Karma. BUT I do know that one example does NOT prove or even illuminate much about how the process works or about what prospective and current applicants need to know in order to better navigate the process.

And I also know that among causes for things going askew or off-the-rails, the failure to follow the instructions and mistakes in information submitted are among the most common, by a big margin. That is simply how it is. And this forum is full of self-reported examples, scores and scores of anecdotal reports in the form "I made this mistake . . . and then this happened." From applications returned as incomplete or because the photos do not meet specifications, to delays in processing when IRCC requests translations or a Police Clearance.

And yeah, scores of applicants who apply within a week or two after they BARELY reach the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM threshold for qualifying. And then wondering why IRCC questions their presence.

For the vast, vast majority of qualified applicants, the path to citizenship is unremarkable, not at all problematic, no significant delays encountered (relative to the mainstream of other applicants applying around the same time). Yours is different. Probably NOT about Karma. I'd guess anyway.

 

[cn2017]

If you are suggesting that ONE example, yours, shows that the timeline does NOT vary considerably due to a wide range of factors, how one example can possibly show this is utterly beyond my comprehension.

Even just a single mistake, let alone the occasional incidence of incompetence or neglect, which I readily acknowledge is inherent in the processing of citizenship applications (again, my signature states: "Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does") can easily explain a single example.

In the meantime, there is currently, overall, a general slowdown in processing. While there may be additional factors, the huge surge in applications in the fourth quarter of 2017 is probably among the most significant if not predominant factor.

Otherwise, the vast majority of applications proceed through the process relatively concurrently, contemporaneously. The respective timeline for those in the mainstream varies (again, there is currently a general slowdown, and in contrast in later 2015 into 2016 there was a period in which applications were being processed more quickly than historically, due to the fact that the number of new applications slowed to a mere trickle).

Again, I make a concerted effort to discern and discuss what actually happens, how it happens, how sundry variables can affect the process. Yes, more than a few variables can be external to the individual applicant. Yes, some variables have to do with incidental factors, like a file being in queue for a particular processing agent to process and that agent then not handling it (which can happen for many different reasons), so that file happens to go yet again into another queue . . . and as I tried to emphasize, the consequence of even a single diversion into another queue can add MONTHS to that individual's timeline. STUFF HAPPENS.

Sometimes when STUFF HAPPENS yes, it is due to a mistake or neglect or incompetence. Other times it is due to circumstances affecting all applications similarly. Sometimes it is specific to the individual.

BUT explaining why this or that happened in your particular case will NOT explain or illuminate much about how things usually work, generally work. Karma? I cannot say so. Not sure I even believe in Karma. BUT I do know that one example does NOT prove or even illuminate much about how the process works or about what prospective and current applicants need to know in order to better navigate the process.

And I also know that among causes for things going askew or off-the-rails, the failure to follow the instructions and mistakes in information submitted are among the most common, by a big margin. That is simply how it is. And this forum is full of self-reported examples, scores and scores of anecdotal reports in the form "I made this mistake . . . and then this happened." From applications returned as incomplete or because the photos do not meet specifications, to delays in processing when IRCC requests translations or a Police Clearance.

And yeah, scores of applicants who apply within a week or two after they BARELY reach the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM threshold for qualifying. And then wondering why IRCC questions their presence.

For the vast, vast majority of qualified applicants, the path to citizenship is unremarkable, not at all problematic, no significant delays encountered (relative to the mainstream of other applicants applying around the same time). Yours is different. Probably NOT about Karma. I'd guess anyway.

I’m sorry, but these comments don’t make much sense. Let’s not make things too complicated with fancy terms. You don’t have to be a mathematician or know all the details to understand that there is a problem with they way they are handling cases and if everyone sits and justifies this deficiency by throwing a bunch of buzz words then the issue will never be addressed and the process will never be improved. What itsmyid said is very true and has happened to a lot of people, so let’s not ignore the facts here. I also had a very similar situation myself, several of my friends from the same company and same life situation and same background started the process together and they completed the entire process a few months ago, but a few of us are still waiting for the test invite after almost 15 months now and according to IRCC everything is fine with our cases and nothing is missing. I'm not talking about my case only, look around and see how many are having the same issue and this forum is a small portion of a much larger number. There is no excuse to take 14 or 18 months to process a case that IRCC calls normal and says “everything is fine”. If everything is fine, then it shouldn’t take more than 12 months maximum, so what does it mean when it does take more than 12 months while IRCC has said everything is fine? It simply means SOMEONE IS NOT DOING THEIR JOB – it’s common sense! Again, you don’t need to know all the details of a process to know if it’s working or not. You don’t need to know how your car engine works to drive, but if that engine keeps breaking then you know there is a problem with it. IRCC’s process is no different, you don’t need to know all the details to know if the process is working or broken, just look at the evidence with an open mind and you will see. If we keep sitting and justifying any BS we see and say or do nothing then we are not doing any good to us or others. We get it, stuff happens, but it's happening to too many cases and too often, so there is a problem. IRCC’s process has problems and needs to be fixed not by fancy mambo jumbos but by pointing out the real problem until it’s improved.

 

[zorroo]

Can you explain to us which kind of security checks get done by CSIS?

No. Far from it.

At least not beyond what is more or less obvious, easily discerned from the statutory proscriptions as to security-related prohibitions and inadmissibility criteria (such as involvement in war crimes, direct or indirect support or participation in terrorism or terrorist organizations, participation or affiliation or association with criminal organizations or organized crime enterprises, and so on).

What CSIS does, including in its role of providing background security clearances for IRCC and other government agencies, is way, way behind very, very dark curtains.

What we know, beyond what the relevant statutes reference, derives from very limited views of the context, circumstances, and facts in only a rather FEW actual cases, and involves more than a little extrapolation from that information. The sources range from media reports about cases involving CSIS (including the more notorious and egregious examples, such as the abuses evident in the Mahar case, but also from media reports about more high-profile challenges in security hold cases), to a number of judicial decisions referring to security related cases, such as cases in which inadmissibility decisions are challenged, citizenship or PR status revocation cases involving accusations of things like supporting a terrorist organization or being associated with organized crime (including gangs), and a rather small number of Mandamus cases in which delays apparently due to outstanding CSIS clearances were at issue.

As I previously suggested, and otherwise have oft alluded, I am confident that the vast, vast majority of those individuals for whom there is a lengthy delay related to a significant CSIS background inquiry or investigation KNOW IT and KNOW WHY. More than a few will deny knowing what or why. Such denials generally lack credibility.

For the PR who honestly has no idea why CSIS might be investigating his or her background, the odds are very good, very good by a big margin, there is no CSIS clearance problem. For example, you know whether you were in Serbia or Bosnia in the '90s and if so, what you were doing, who you were working for, and with little more than some casual homework you can discern if there is any chance that employment raises security related concerns. (Example: a doctor had been employed by an aid organization which subsequently, well after the doctor ceased providing medical services through that organization, became affiliated with an organization designated as terrorism-related, and thus the doctor's application for citizenship was held up for MANY YEARS, and there was never any doubt about why, the question was only whether the court should compel CIC to grant citizenship or if, in the opposite direction, CIC could terminate the doctor's PR status based on inadmissibility. While that was a key issue in that case, there were other complicating elements and sorry I do not recall the specific outcome, except to note the court had little problem with the fact processing the citizenship application had been delayed for many years.)

REMINDER: Again, in the vast majority of instances there is a generic references to "waiting for background check," what is happening is basically NOTHING, the application IS IN QUEUE, WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP.

First of all thank you for spending the time to answer everybody's questions.
However your answer regarding the extra security check done by CSIS does not make sense for a lot of cases I know.
There is a lot of Iranian applicants, whom their security check has taken a very long time and non of them has been involved on those activities you mentioned in your explanation. A lot of them has became citizen but after a very long time of waiting for security clearance!!

 

[cn2017]

First of all thank you for spending the time to answer everybody's questions.
However your answer regarding the extra security check done by CSIS does not make sense for a lot of cases I know.
There is a lot of Iranian applicants, whom their security check has taken a very long time and non of them has been involved on those activities you mentioned in your explanation. A lot of them has became citizen but after a very long time of waiting for security clearance!!

You are right. Based on what I have been seeing and hearing there is discrimination and deficiency in their process, which should be corrected. All this security checks, background checks, or anything else they want to call it do not take more than a week to complete if they want to complete it. When you call them and ask them why it’s taking so long after 12 months and they say everything is fine you know that there is no real problem with your case and they use these background check terms as an excuse to cover either the fact that some agents are not doing their jobs, or there is discrimination. Either way, there is a problem with their process. There is no excuse to see so many cases that are taking so long to be processed without any reason or explanation. I have seen people with criminal background whose cases were processed faster than this

.

 

[itsmyid]

First of all thank you for spending the time to answer everybody's questions.
However your answer regarding the extra security check done by CSIS does not make sense for a lot of cases I know.
There is a lot of Iranian applicants, whom their security check has taken a very long time and non of them has been involved on those activities you mentioned in your explanation. A lot of them has became citizen but after a very long time of waiting for security clearance!!

He just got too much time and imagination ....

 

[dpenabill]

First of all thank you for spending the time to answer everybody's questions.
However your answer regarding the extra security check done by CSIS does not make sense for a lot of cases I know.
There is a lot of Iranian applicants, whom their security check has taken a very long time and non of them has been involved on those activities you mentioned in your explanation. A lot of them has became citizen but after a very long time of waiting for security clearance!!

I do not follow why what I previously posted, explicitly recognizing that having been in certain parts of the world during particular periods of time can result in a longer CSIS background screening, is inconsistent with the experiences reported by some applicants with backgrounds in Iran.

The example I gave was Bosnia and Serbia during the conflicts there, while of course there are many other examples. But yes, indeed, there are many indications that SOME (not nearly all) PRs who have backgrounds in Iran are subject to more extensive screening and lengthy delays. To what extent this is rooted in subservience to U.S. policy, remembering that the U.S. has designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism for more than three decades now, I do not know. But in addition to concerns arising relative to certain parts of Iran, such as those bordering Afghanistan (note for example that the current Minister of Status of Women, an MP representing the riding of Peterborough-Kawartha, has been subject to attack because of imprecise records as to her actual place of birth; she came to Canada as a refugee from Afghanistan but information later surfaced she was probably born in Iran, leading not only to some controversy but to some calls for her citizenship to be revoked), there appears to be other security related concerns which CSIS has regarding a significant number of those who have lived in Iran.

This is something also experienced by those who have lived for significant periods of time in other countries, like Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan. While Canada has embraced a substantial number of refugees from Syria in the last couple years, my guess is that a disproportionate number of them will also likely face elevated scrutiny when the time comes to apply for citizenship.

As I said, the applicants know where they were living before they came to Canada. They know the circumstances. They should be able to relatively easily forecast IF and WHY they might encounter such elevated scrutiny and some delays. Been in Canada since you were three years old. Probably does not matter where you were born unless you have been traveling there and spending time there. Immigrated to Canada after living as an adult in a conflict region, yep, the scrutiny level undoubtedly goes up. Especially if there has been any military service (and in many areas military service is compulsory, so this tends to have an impact on many immigrants from those countries).

In the scheme of Canadian immigration, and among citizenship applicants in particular, the number affected is relatively small. Again, almost all of those who are likely to be affected, they know or should know . . . and they also should have a good idea what the ultimate outcome will be. That is, those delayed due to this know or should easily know they were at risk for such a delay, and should also have a rather good idea whether there is going to be a problem or just a delay (in addition to knowing where they have been, when, they also know what activities or groups they were involved with there and then).

This does NOT illuminate much, if anything, about what you asked, which was about what is done in the CSIS security check. As I said, beyond referencing what the statutory provisions prescribe, as to prohibitions and inadmissibility, NO, I cannot offer much about that, since I do not know, since again that is all way behind a very dark curtain of confidentiality.

It is worth noting that CSIS itself may also have very long queues for certain types of overseas inquiries, taking a very long time to pick up and deal with those particular files. But this is something we cannot know because, again, what CSIS does is among the most closely guarded confidential information there is in Canada.




As for other distractions and unfounded rants:

Sorry about using complex terminology and buzz words like "Stuff Happens," and my apologies to those confused by such terms and my effort to illuminate that the persistent misconception picturing some processing agent labouring at length over an application (incompetently or not, neglectfully or otherwise) is way, way off.

For those who have had an application in process for, say, a year plus some, say 400 days plus some. Make no mistake, for at least 390 or more of those days, the application was in queue, NOTHING happening, nothing being done, the application simply waiting until someone takes it and does something . . . which for all but maybe one or two times in the whole process, will take ONLY MINUTES, a PART of an hour, for that person to do. That's it.

That is NOT about the process being broken. That is how the process works, albeit the actual amount of time waiting in the respective queues varies from time to time, significantly slower now than it was in 2017, way faster now than it was in 2011 to 2014.

So for those who have trouble following the more detailed explanation, I can try to make it simple:

When the typical forum participant makes the "Are we there yet?" telephone query to the Help Centre, no one should be surprised the agent has little to offer beyond: "NO, you are NOT there yet."

It is NOT that complicated. No buzzwords necessary. Actual terms used may vary. Calling back the next week will NOT accelerate the process.

As for accusations that IRCC citizenship application processing is in disarray, a broken process, that is largely unfounded fear mongering. Last I saw, IRCC was still on track to grant citizenship to nearly a QUARTER MILLION or so new citizens this year. The vast majority of whom just applied in 2017 along with many who applied this year, in 2018 (compare this to 2014 when a large number of new citizens that year had applied back in 2011).

So notwithstanding the bad experiences suffered by more than a few (I do not mean to be dismissive when applicants incur inordinate hurdles or delays), the vast majority of you who have an application in process or are planning to apply soon, there is NO NEED to WORRY that IRCC is going to lose your application, deny you unjustly, or send you to a Citizenship Judge without reason, or otherwise impose delays longer than those in the mainstream range. It is NOT likely some incompetent or nefarious processing agent is going to ruin or derail your application.

This is the main message worth emphasizing here: if you are qualified, prohibitions free, applied with a sensible margin over the minimum, followed the instructions and made only minimal mistakes, and accurately provided all the information and documents, DO NOT WORRY. Your role is to WAIT and watch for notices from IRCC. Prepare for the test if appropriate. The wait is likely to be longer than you like. Longer than what many think is reasonable. But the odds are GOOD all will go well and in due course you take the oath, in a timeline roughly comparable with the majority of others who applied around the same time.

Some exceptions apply. As noted, with apologies again for using sophisticated buzzwords, Stuff Happens. Odds are good most of you will not suffer being among the exceptions, and I hope you are not among those who suffer unnecessary problems.

BUT when you call the Help Centre to ask, in effect, "Are we there yet," and the agent says your application is waiting for clearances, know and understand that mostly means you are not there yet, that you will have to wait some more.

 

[SunnyWays]

Test 10th Dec, 2018
Decision Made Today on Ecas but I don't have any Oath Invite Email or anything,

@dpenabill

 

[dmn1363]

Test 10th Dec, 2018
Decision Made Today on Ecas but I don't have any Oath Invite Email or anything,

@dpenabill

Congrats Sunnyways. You should receive pretty soon.

 

[SunnyWays]

Congrats Sunnyways. You should receive pretty soon.

thank you dmn1363, will keep you guyz posted if anything new comes up

 

[Lavidaedura]

I would contact them to see what's going on. Unfortunately this is happening to some people on the forum. I think things are coming to a slow down because of the holiday season. I've found that when you contact them, it usually helps get things moving. I could be wrong and it was just a fluke that coincided with them moving along in the process, but it shouldn't hurt.

Thx for the reply
I called them, my application is stuck at background check.
They said 14 months is not much .

 

[sarafandee]

While I appreciate the posts by some to help rectify the different causes of delay for many of the applications, I need to draw your attention to one thing, and one thing only, the people working at IRCC are humans and not robots. Humans are prone to working using an imperfect process that could easily be adminstered within a greater imperfect platform, such as the one we are dealing with. That being said, a significant percentage of the applicants will fall within the imperfect boundaries of the immigration process. Dissapointing, annoying, and frustrating as it is, all what we can do is keep on contacting them and hoping for a change. The process requires to be more transparent like other countries out there, and I wish it does for our sake and the sake of future immigrants coming to this beautiful country.

I am 15+ months now waiting for a test invite, best of luck to all those still waiting.

 

[Mehran1]

While I appreciate the posts by some to help rectify the different causes of delay for many of the applications, I need to draw your attention to one thing, and one thing only, the people working at IRCC are humans and not robots. Humans are prone to working using an imperfect process that could easily be adminstered within a greater imperfect platform, such as the one we are dealing with. That being said, a significant percentage of the applicants will fall within the imperfect boundaries of the immigration process. Dissapointing, annoying, and frustrating as it is, all what we can do is keep on contacting them and hoping for a change. The process requires to be more transparent like other countries out there, and I wish it does for our sake and the sake of future immigrants coming to this beautiful country.

I am 15+ months now waiting for a test invite, best of luck to all those still waiting.

Did you asked them which part it is not done ?
I call them yesterday . I was shocked that the agant told me they didnt start prohibition and residency Yet after almost 17 months . I asked them is there any flag or note on my file or it is on hold he said no your file is look like regular one and just waiting for residency and prohibition. I agree with you that there is no transparency to find out what the problem is .

 

[sarafandee]

Did you asked them which part it is not done ?
I call them yesterday . I was shocked that the agant told me they didnt start prohibition and residency Yet after almost 17 months . I asked them is there any flag or note on my file or it is on hold he said no your file is look like regular one and just waiting for residency and prohibition. I agree with you that there is no transparency to find out what the problem is .

Of course I did, they tell me pending completion of background check. If I was an alien immigrating from Mars, my background check should have completed by now.