You are a LEGEND!!!!!!!Hope it is useful for you. *Disclaimer - Copied the below from another group
Calling CIC - steps*
1- *CIC call centre*
+16139444000
2- English *press 1*
3- immigration *press 1*
4- transfer to citzship and imm can processing application *press 1*
5- status or processing times *press 1*
6- become permanent resident *press 2*
7- application starts with E *press 2*
8- then enter *application number* followed by #
9- listen to the entered number and *press 1* to confirm
10- enter the *year of birth* and then listen the entered number and *press 1* to confirm
11- hear the details
12- then *press 1* to check status (there will be a pause)
13- hear detailed status at the end *press 0* to speak to agent
Use Skype or a US / Canada number or any international number service
December 2018 AOR - join here
- Thread starter kunalsingla1991
- Start date
@Nimesh91, I used these directions drawn up meticulously by @USProgrammer, and I recommend everyone else here do the same. I spent less time waiting on the phone before I found out whether or not I was going to be put in a queue to speak to an agent. This is important because I failed on the first 10 attempts to be put in a queue and it only cost me two minutes every time. It would cost you at least 5 minutes on every try if you have to key in your UCI and listen to the full recorded status of your application before you find out whether you are going to be placed in a queue or not!
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/december-2018-aor-join-here.598089/page-90#post-7579221
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/december-2018-aor-join-here.598089/page-90#post-7579221
@derkdsou: What number do you call on? I try the number every day and it disconnects after the Automated status message.
Last edited:
@moeykang, I don't think you meant this to be a haiku, but it qualifies! Haha! @USProgrammer @Laumyl, we have an unwitting haiku participant!
Hi @Laumyl, no, everything on my status page is still the same as before. In fact, eligibility is not something that changes to 'passed' until after a candidate receives a PPR, in most cases. Also, note that my eligibility has been marked 'met', which means it is more or less completed pending a final review by someone either at CPC-Ottawa or my local visa office (could be Delhi or London, depending on where my file goes). When a second officer signs off on my eligibility it will then be marked as 'passed'.
Calling the call center does not place a burden on processing times because the call center agents are part of the customer services arm of IRCC. The call center agents are simply messengers and not case officers themselves, and I believe the same holds true for agents replying to CSE requests.
Calling the call center does not place a burden on processing times because the call center agents are part of the customer services arm of IRCC. The call center agents are simply messengers and not case officers themselves, and I believe the same holds true for agents replying to CSE requests.
I wanted to share some more observations from my call with IRCC yesterday that may be helpful to you:
1. Should I submit a PCC for the US unprompted? (For context, I lived in the US up until 11 years ago - this meant that I was not required to submit a PCC for the US upfront because my subsequent visits totaled about three months in the 10 years of travel history that I had to report. I have not received an ADR for a US PCC.) He said he can't comment on whether I should submit a US PCC preemptively...it might slow down the application or speed things up but he can't know that because he is not a case officer. However, he said that there is a very high degree of information sharing between the US and Canada and information on all of my movements in and out of the US are available to Canada already. IRCC/CSIS are mainly concerned with knowing whether there were any issues during my stays in the US or whether I was able to leave and reenter without any difficulties, or if I had ever overstayed on any of my visits, been stopped at the US border, etc. If there are no such issues then there should be no red flags.
2. I have already talked about the agent's observations on an ETH (see my own quote below).
3. Why are certain candidates selected by IRCC/CSIS for an extended security screening? The agent believes the reason why some people are put into an extended security screening is usually because their name is the same as or similar to someone on a number of watch lists that they monitor. (I am lucky to have a very uncommon name - indeed, I have never met anyone else with my first name nor have I met anyone with my last name that isn't family.)
4. I had uploaded a scan of my old, expired passport, which the agent confirmed IRCC has received and added to my file. Again, I had not received an ADR; I decided to upload a scan out of caution because it had about 40% of the stamps that corroborated the roughly 100 trips I reported as a part of my travel history...and also because the old passport contained my expired US H-1B, my valid US B1/B2 visa, two UK resident permit visas (now expired), as well as a visa to Canada that I used once. I understand that we are not required to upload old passports but I thought it might be a good thing for case officers to have access to it.
1. Should I submit a PCC for the US unprompted? (For context, I lived in the US up until 11 years ago - this meant that I was not required to submit a PCC for the US upfront because my subsequent visits totaled about three months in the 10 years of travel history that I had to report. I have not received an ADR for a US PCC.) He said he can't comment on whether I should submit a US PCC preemptively...it might slow down the application or speed things up but he can't know that because he is not a case officer. However, he said that there is a very high degree of information sharing between the US and Canada and information on all of my movements in and out of the US are available to Canada already. IRCC/CSIS are mainly concerned with knowing whether there were any issues during my stays in the US or whether I was able to leave and reenter without any difficulties, or if I had ever overstayed on any of my visits, been stopped at the US border, etc. If there are no such issues then there should be no red flags.
2. I have already talked about the agent's observations on an ETH (see my own quote below).
3. Why are certain candidates selected by IRCC/CSIS for an extended security screening? The agent believes the reason why some people are put into an extended security screening is usually because their name is the same as or similar to someone on a number of watch lists that they monitor. (I am lucky to have a very uncommon name - indeed, I have never met anyone else with my first name nor have I met anyone with my last name that isn't family.)
4. I had uploaded a scan of my old, expired passport, which the agent confirmed IRCC has received and added to my file. Again, I had not received an ADR; I decided to upload a scan out of caution because it had about 40% of the stamps that corroborated the roughly 100 trips I reported as a part of my travel history...and also because the old passport contained my expired US H-1B, my valid US B1/B2 visa, two UK resident permit visas (now expired), as well as a visa to Canada that I used once. I understand that we are not required to upload old passports but I thought it might be a good thing for case officers to have access to it.
I have to wonder. We know that actual eligibility is the longest part of the process because everything is reviewed in full for a second time with most cases.
I'm wondering if Eligibility here being marked as Met is indicative of R10 completion rather than actual eligibility confirmation.
I.e. Cursory r10 review suggests eligibility met, all documents appear valid and application considered complete. The full review of eligibility goes over making sure that all your claimed for points are valid and appropriately proven etc.
This is just spitballing, obviously. Just seems odd that eligibility is being marked complete before background and security checks are done?
I'm wondering if Eligibility here being marked as Met is indicative of R10 completion rather than actual eligibility confirmation.
I.e. Cursory r10 review suggests eligibility met, all documents appear valid and application considered complete. The full review of eligibility goes over making sure that all your claimed for points are valid and appropriately proven etc.
This is just spitballing, obviously. Just seems odd that eligibility is being marked complete before background and security checks are done?
One's eligibility is not marked 'passed' until a second officer signs off on the analysis of the first officer and this happens either at CPC-Ottawa or one's LVO, like I've already said. R10 is a check for completeness of documents -- it is a step that is completed even prior to a review of the medicals, according to @legalfalcon.
Criminality and security both fall under the umbrella of what IRCC calls a background check. Eligibility is different to a background check. How can the two be conflated?!
"Cursory r10 review suggests eligibility met." -- Where are you getting this from?!
Criminality and security both fall under the umbrella of what IRCC calls a background check. Eligibility is different to a background check. How can the two be conflated?!
"Cursory r10 review suggests eligibility met." -- Where are you getting this from?!
Hi @derkdsou,
For the first point you mention, though slightly different situation i was wondering the same thing but for France as i am French but haven't lived there for 15 years. What i ended up doing is request the French PCC so if they ask for it at some point in the process i can upload it immediately rather than go through the waiting time of requesting it etc... For PCCs of countries where you don't currently reside it does not really matter when it was requested (while for the current country they want a recent one) so good to have handy.
My point was, it's odd that anyone has Eligibility marked as "met" so early in the process given that it's explicitly stated that eligibility takes the longest to confirm. Background checks are a part of confirming eligibility (Unless you clear every step, you aren't eligible).
So I was wondering, out loud, where the eligibility being listed as met so early on, has come from. I don't believe this is *actual* eligibility clearance as they haven't had time to cover everything. Seems to me that eligibility being met so soon would be the result of going over everything at the surface level and not seeing anything that stands out. I.e nothing has been verified, but what you've provided has been checked and seems fine. Which also, coincidentally, describes the r10 process.
Also, please stop talking down to me, cheers. I'm well aware of how the process works, as its understood in the forum.
So I was wondering, out loud, where the eligibility being listed as met so early on, has come from. I don't believe this is *actual* eligibility clearance as they haven't had time to cover everything. Seems to me that eligibility being met so soon would be the result of going over everything at the surface level and not seeing anything that stands out. I.e nothing has been verified, but what you've provided has been checked and seems fine. Which also, coincidentally, describes the r10 process.
Also, please stop talking down to me, cheers. I'm well aware of how the process works, as its understood in the forum.
Unless you back up what you're saying I find it is conjecture. Are you simply theorizing without sources to back up your claims?
It is easy to misunderstand someone's tone over written communication. In my previous reply, I have defended my position on certain things you challenged and asked you to provide evidence or cite sources. You are not doing that.
It is easy to misunderstand someone's tone over written communication. In my previous reply, I have defended my position on certain things you challenged and asked you to provide evidence or cite sources. You are not doing that.