The anatomy of a Background Check? - <<<<<<IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS>>>>>>>

[torontob]

All applications go through security which is done by CBSA and CSIS.

There is no file that is not sent to CBSA.

This is an incorrect statement. There are many examples of where only one of the applicants on the same application has gone to CBSA or CSIS. Unfortunately, at this time, I have to point out that you are biased and want people to order all sorts of notes and spend money.

If CIC officer determines someone should go to CBSA they send it. If they do not, then it is not sent to CBSA. If CBSA determines someone should go to CSIS then it will happen, otherwise, it won't happen. There are case laws where CIC determined they should contact German immigration for someone who they suspected might have been a German permanent resident. Would you say that that of check is done for everyone too?

 

[torontob]

All applications go through security. The security is done by IRCC, CSIS and CBSA. As per your activity here, your security is in progress. You will have at least 4 such activities before the security is concluded.

INCORRECT.

All security details in a GCMS notes are redacted. However, in the CBSA notes the security related details are not redacted and this is why you can see security screening, which is there in all GCMS notes.

INCORRECT. CBSA shows a bit more but not ALL. They still redact, want me to pull up 100s of links from this forum for that?

The application is send to CSIS and CBSA at the same time. First CSIS concludes its involvement and then sends its report to CBSA, which then makes a comprehensive report and sends it to IRCC. The report will have the details and it is for IRCC to make a determination if an applicant is inadmissible based on the findings.

INCORRECT. CBSA decides to send to CSIS or not. They don't send for all applications. Same goes with their all other partners.

No one can figure our if CBSA has concluded its investigations. The only way to go about it by finding if CSIS has concluded its involvement and sent its report, which is clearly written in a CSIS report.

INCORRECT. Yes, you can. For example, if a Visa is issued that obviously means CBSA is done. Also, the notes show that now there is a request for 2nd medical or someone is sent passport request. All of that means CBSA is done. Also, the *update* dates give it away. There is a lot of deduction for those who have good eyes for these.

Also, please do not share your CBSA or GCMS notes. The Government of Canada classifies them as Protected B documents (Applies to information or assets that, if compromised, could cause injury to an individual, organization or government.)

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/esc-src/protection-safeguarding/niveaux-levels-eng.html

INCORRECT / OUT OF CONTEXT. There is no law that bars one from sharing their personal info in any of the immigration or other Canadian laws or charter of rights. Law is taken out of context here. The law says, info is protected by Gov which means Gov has a duty to protect it and will guard against unauthorized access. It does not step into people's bedrooms and say You are not allowed to willingly seek help or share your personal info.

Even if this is still your opinion that it is illegal to share one's info, it should also include private companies who order notes too like GetGCMS. I am sure it is only one or two people and trusting them should be an issue as well. I think you meant to say be Cautious when sharing your info OR that sharing info without redaction on public forums can be potentially harmful. This rule applies to all forms of media.

I think you meant well in saying above but may want to rephrase because correct info is important.

 

[legalfalcon]

INCORRECT.


INCORRECT. CBSA shows a bit more but not ALL. They still redact, want me to pull up 100s of links from this forum for that?


INCORRECT. CBSA decides to send to CSIS or not. They don't send for all applications. Same goes with their all other partners.


INCORRECT. Yes, you can. For example, if a Visa is issued that obviously means CBSA is done. Also, the notes show that now there is a request for 2nd medical or someone is sent passport request. All of that means CBSA is done. Also, the *update* dates give it away. There is a lot of deduction for those who have good eyes for these.


INCORRECT / OUT OF CONTEXT. There is no law that bars one from sharing their personal info in any of the immigration or other Canadian laws or charter of rights. Law is taken out of context here. The law says, info is protected by Gov which means Gov has a duty to protect it and will guard against unauthorized access. It does not step into people's bedrooms and say You are not allowed to willingly seek help or share your personal info.

Even if this is still your opinion that it is illegal to share one's info, it should also include private companies who order notes too like GetGCMS. I am sure it is only one or two people and trusting them should be an issue as well. I think you meant to say be Cautious when sharing your info OR that sharing info without redaction on public forums can be potentially harmful. This rule applies to all forms of media.

I think you meant well in saying above but may want to rephrase because correct info is important.

INCORRECT. CBSA shows a bit more but not ALL. They still redact, want me to pull up 100s of links from this forum for that?

Typing in bold does not justify or make your contentions correct. CBSA uses the Global Case Processing System (GCMS). The GCMS notes and the CBSA notes are exactly the same, with the exception that the security is not redacted in CBSA notes. If there is an ongoing investigation, or a documents that have been flagged as misrepresentation, then definitely it will be redacted. Also, any federal agency can refuse to disclose / redact any information pursuant to the provisions of the Access to Information Act. When any information is redacted, the relevant provision is listed.

Also, any request for Security Screening is not sent via GCMS. See 7.2 of the IC manual. This relay of information is not a part of GCMS, just like the final SS report is neither a part of the GCMS or CSIS report.

I do not go by anecdotal evidence or links on the forum. I go by what the law, regulations and the agency manuals state. See Immigration Control (IC) Manual - Security Screening Process Manual.

INCORRECT. CBSA decides to send to CSIS or not. They don't send for all applications. Same goes with their all other partners.

See
https://www.canada.ca/en/security-intelligence-service/services/security-screening-for-immigration-and-citizenship-applications.html

The agencies involved in security screening are clearly listed in the link above.

What is Security screening and who does it:



It is not CBSA who decides, if an applicant is inadmissible, his application can be rejected immediately by IRCC without any security screening. For all other, the files are send to the National Security Screening Division (NSSD) and SS partners. It is not CBSA who makes a call, rather it is IRCC officer who decides whether a screening which relates to national security concerns is required under A34(1)(a), (c), (d) and (f) of IRPA.

Further, s. 14 of the CSIS states:

14 The Service may

• 
  
  
  • (a) advise any minister of the Crown on matters relating to the security of Canada, or
  • (b) provide any minister of the Crown with information relating to security matters or criminal activities,

that is relevant to the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty or function by that Minister under the Citizenship Act or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

INCORRECT. Yes, you can. For example, if a Visa is issued that obviously means CBSA is done. Also, the notes show that now there is a request for 2nd medical or someone is sent passport request. All of that means CBSA is done. Also, the *update* dates give it away. There is a lot of deduction for those who have good eyes for these.

Seems like you have some super human powers. Congratulations!! If things were just based on anecdotal evidence, permutations or combinations, then your observations would have been amazingly useful. Just because A = B, and B = C, does not mean that A = C. This is a logical fallacy.

There are many applicants who have received second medical request, and still had to wait for another few months before they received a decision on their application.

You can continue to make deductions based on trends, but unfortunately Immigration is based on law, and law is based on procedure established by law, as stated in rules, regulations and manuals. Who came first, chicken or the egg, can go on forever.

INCORRECT / OUT OF CONTEXT. There is no law that bars one from sharing their personal info in any of the immigration or other Canadian laws or charter of rights. Law is taken out of context here. The law says, info is protected by Gov which means Gov has a duty to protect it and will guard against unauthorized access. It does not step into people's bedrooms and say You are not allowed to willingly seek help or share your personal info.

Read what I have written. Federal government contracts contain clauses with security requirements. These requirements specify the levels of security needed to safeguard sensitive information, assets and work sites. In this context the GCMS notes are classified as Protected B category.

Unless you fall under any of the laws imposed confidentiality regimes for lawyers, doctors, and there professionals, you are still bound by how personal information is protected and retained. If an individual who has access to his personal information decides to divulge information to a person openly on a forum or privately, is his concern. I merely pointed out the nature of the level of security that is afforded to that document that was in question to be shared, the importance of the documents, and and prospective repercussions on sharing it with people who do not fall under the legal regime as stated above. What you or anyone else done with his or her information, is their problem.

As regards any private organisations dealing with private information, they are bound by a comprehensive legislation called, The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Further, Provinces have their Privacy legislations based on where an entity is incorporated. If or anyone else, have any concerns, you can file a complaint with Privacy Commissioner of Canada, about any private entity, including GET GCMS, collecting personal information, and the PC who would be happy to investigate you complaints.

Finally, the IC manual is a long comprehensive document, that lists and deals with how the security screening is conducted, the guidelines for the security screening, how decisions on SS are made, and elaborately discussed SS for TRV, PR, Protected persons, family class, citizenship applications and refugee claimants.

 

[legalfalcon]

This is an incorrect statement. There are many examples of where only one of the applicants on the same application has gone to CBSA or CSIS.

Unfortunately, at this time, I have to point out that you are biased and want people to order all sorts of notes and spend money.

If CIC officer determines someone should go to CBSA they send it. If they do not, then it is not sent to CBSA. If CBSA determines someone should go to CSIS then it will happen, otherwise, it won't happen. There are case laws where CIC determined they should contact German immigration for someone who they suspected might have been a German permanent resident. Would you say that that of check is done for everyone too?

Unfortunately, at this time, I have to point out that you are biased and want people to order all sorts of notes and spend money.

You should search this forum and see how many times I have dissuaded people from not requesting any notes. Further, when I answer anyone's questions or queries, I do not ask where they requested their documents from, or whether they are being represented by a lawyer. This is a community for exchanging idea, information, and collaborating, and I leave it there. If I see anything is incorrectly stated, I will point it out.

What your statement has done is called Ad Hominem Fallacy, where you start personally attacking the person, instead of addressing the person's claims or argument. That agin is your choice and you are more than welcome to do so.

You, like many others here on the forum and WWW, have all rights to interpret, conclude, propagate what you wish. Neither the person whom I responded to, or anyone else is obligated to follow what I say. I don't give legal advice on the forum.

So you are more than welcome to state what you want.

 

[torontob]

Typing in bold does not justify or make your contentions correct. CBSA uses the Global Case Processing System (GCMS). The GCMS notes and the CBSA notes are exactly the same, with the exception that the security is not redacted in CBSA notes. If there is an ongoing investigation, or a documents that have been flagged as misrepresentation, then definitely it will be redacted. Also, any federal agency can refuse to disclose / redact any information pursuant to the provisions of the Access to Information Act. When any information is redacted, the relevant provision is listed.

You are great at changing subjects. I agree with all above you said but why do you even mention all this? This was not what I said is incorrect. You specifically said, "All applications go through security." You can go back and delete your post if you want. That is still INCORRECT. Stop giving misinformation. Backup that statement with flood of information. See below highlighted for you.

Also, any request for Security Screening is not sent via GCMS. See 7.2 of the IC manual. This relay of information is not a part of GCMS, just like the final SS report is neither a part of the GCMS or CSIS report.

Again, changing topics. Where did I say communication between CIC and CBSA is made through GCMS?

I do not go by anecdotal evidence or links on the forum. I go by what the law, regulations and the agency manuals state. See Immigration Control (IC) Manual - Security Screening Process Manual.

IRRELEVANT and 3rd attempt at changing topics. I never said you don't know what you say. I think you just mistakenly gave wrong info. But since you are insisting, I think it's your business bias speaking.

And below document you posted CLEARLY says, "Officers who have reason to believe that an applicant may be inadmissible.....should send a request for security screening to the NSSD..." It does NOT say that ALL applicants must go through this type of security check. I am ready to turn this into a $1000 bet for you if you still like to stand by your misinterpretation. Not everyone is sent to CSIS for check for example.



SAME BELOW SAME COPY I HIGHLIGHTED THE RULES FOR YOU. IT USES THE WORD "SHOULD" NOT "MUST" AND IT ALSO SAYS TO DO THIS WHEN THERE IS A REASON. Not everyone has a military record. Not everyone comes from a country with higher risk. Some people are sent to 34A Comprehensive Check and some are not. My bet for $1000 is still on and I will provide CSIS paperwork for you if you want.

And again from your own snapshots:



Check below same copy highlighted that really needs your attention:

Are you not reading the lines or don't understand the meaning of words? "When warranted" means "When needed" which means "NOT ALWAYS but ONLY When Needed". And you ask why I used bold letters because I have posted previously to you to not post wrong information.

Seems like you have some super human powers. Congratulations!! If things were just based on anecdotal evidence, permutations or combinations, then your observations would have been amazingly useful. Just because A = B, and B = C, does not mean that A = C. This is a logical fallacy.

I hope the highlighted areas above make it clear for you that not everyone goes through Comprehensive Security.


[

There are many applicants who have received second medical request, and still had to wait for another few months before they received a decision on their application.

Sure, there may be. Most of them are waiting in queue to be reviewed again by a lazy LVO. But most are dealt with on quicker basis.

Read what I have written. Federal government contracts contain clauses with security requirements. These requirements specify the levels of security needed to safeguard sensitive information, assets and work sites. In this context the GCMS notes are classified as Protected B category.

Are you trying to imply that GetGCMS are immigration lawyers or licenses immigration consultants? or hold any other license or permit? I really like to hear this. You can get in trouble for that. Add a disclaimer to your signature that you are not licensed otherwise your implies will get you in trouble.

I mean above with sincerity and respect and I hope you take it as same.

 

[torontob]

You should search this forum and see how many times I have dissuaded people from not requesting any notes. Further, when I answer anyone's questions or queries, I do not ask where they requested their documents from, or whether they are being represented by a lawyer. This is a community for exchanging idea, information, and collaborating, and I leave it there. If I see anything is incorrectly stated, I will point it out.

What your statement has done is called Ad Hominem Fallacy, where you start personally attacking the person, instead of addressing the person's claims or argument. That agin is your choice and you are more than welcome to do so.

You, like many others here on the forum and WWW, have all rights to interpret, conclude, propagate what you wish. Neither the person whom I responded to, or anyone else is obligated to follow what I say. I don't give legal advice on the forum.

So you are more than welcome to state what you want.

I have told you before that NOT all cases go to CSIS and you sort of agreed but bounced back and said it again that all cases go to CSIS. Don't take it personally because it is still the truth. Stop saying ALL cases go to CSIS. It sounds scaremongering.

I am sure you can do better. Just my two cents.

 

[legalfalcon]

I have told you before that NOT all cases go to CSIS and you sort of agreed but bounced back and said it again that all cases go to CSIS. Don't take it personally because it is still the truth. Stop saying ALL cases go to CSIS. It sounds scaremongering.

I am sure you can do better. Just my two cents.

You are great at changing subjects. I agree with all above you said but why do you even mention all this? This was not what I said is incorrect. You specifically said, "All applications go through security." You can go back and delete your post if you want. That is still INCORRECT. Stop giving misinformation. Backup that statement with flood of information. See below highlighted for you.

The flood of information is the Manual used by the federal agencies. And yes, I rely on them, and NOT on the forums links or google. So you need to correct yourself.

As regards my statement, I repeat it once again. All application go through security, just as they go though eligibility.

As regards misinformation, you earlier were speculating, then I provide you with Federal Government manual, and then you misinterpret the document, misinterpret what I wrote, pick selective words and use words as fear mongering.

You dint even have this information that I have shared. So stop the drama of you know all.

SAME BELOW SAME COPY I HIGHLIGHTED THE RULES FOR YOU. IT USES THE WORD "SHOULD" NOT "MUST" AND IT ALSO SAYS TO DO THIS WHEN THERE IS A REASON. Not everyone has a military record. Not everyone comes from a country with higher risk. Some people are sent to 34A Comprehensive Check and some are not. My bet for $1000 is still on and I will provide CSIS paperwork for you if you want.

These are not rules, this is a MANUAL. Please read and get to know the difference between Legislation, Regulations, Policy Manuals, and Case laws. This Manual is a 100 page long document with very precise procedures and protocols. Please have the courtesy of reading it. Then read the operation bulletins. Point out where it states that people who have a military record are always sent for security, of those who have military record may be sent to security, do you have list of higher risk countries, or point out where the manual states that people coming form specific countries are sent for security or for that matter, where is it the term, comprehensive security used in the manual?

As regards legislative interpretation about Should, Shall, May etc. There are Supreme Court of Canada Judgments and federal court judgments on this. And yes, the legal interpretations of these words is not the same as dictionary definition.

Go read the manual in its entirety, the elaborate procedure, instead of cherry picking the words from what I shared. I wish that the procedure and law was all about selective reading and picking up one phrase here and there. As regards, fear mongering, it is you who is doing it and pretending as if you know everything, and quoting links on this form. What you are highlighting is the overarching MANDATE. Read the procedure and protocol. Also read the procedure for overseas applicants via a vis inland. It's all in the Manual.

Provide the CSIS paper work? Why are you hiding it until now. Shouldn't it have been the first thing you should have cited instead of forum links?

And FYI, the paperwork is called legislation, regulations / rules, manuals, operation bulletins or a caselaw interpreting these.

And again from your own snapshots:

These are not snap shots, there are the extracts from the the Manual, a federal government document that I have cited.

Check below same copy highlighted that really needs your attention:

What you highlighted in the sentence:

"When warranted, officer's

Now read the remaining: refer application in accordance with instructions provided in this manual to the CBSA and screening partners for security screening."

If nothing else, at least read the extract in its entirety, that I have posted. When it is warranted, is not something that is discretionary, it is clearly written in the manual and how it is to be determined is also clearly stated. Similarly, Mandate of agencies is not the same as manual instructions.

Are you trying to imply that GetGCMS are immigration lawyers or licenses immigration consultants? or hold any other license or permit? I really like to hear this. You can get in trouble for that. Add a disclaimer to your signature that you are not licensed otherwise your implies will get you in trouble.

I am not implying or pretending, as a LICENSED (yes licensed, and I don't need a disclaimer, maybe you do) professional, it's not my job to educate you and provide you with public documents. Do your due diligence and read it. You are more than welcome to keep beating the drum of what you know based on Google or this forum. As regards my professional and ethical obligations, I know them better than you do and the last thing I need is lessons from you on that. As regards my license or that of people associated with GET GCMS, you are more than welcome to file a complaint, if eligible, with the Law Society of Ontario, or IRCC, and you will have your answer.

As regards bias, may be you can google how many GCMS notes providers are there. Who uses which website, is their prerogative. When you can't quote any law, regulations, or cite any manual, the best thing is to start hurling abuses at others, hiding behind a pseudonym, and you have championed this art..

What I had to state, I have. I never replied to your comments to begin with. To whom I replied, it is for him to judge what he needs to do with his application.

And as for you, you can keep beating the drums of that you know all, and cherry picking what suits your argument. Just because you provided a bunch of baloney, which I pointed out as incorrect and misleading information, does not mean you have to blabber till eternity.

You can do much better, just if you read things in its entirety and not cherry pick what suits you.

All the best!

 

[canadacalling777]

@legalfalcon Can you please help.

My GCMS notes show that my eligibility, criminality, medicals is all passed.

I contacted Ralph and his email says that my security is in progress. How long does it take for the security to finish. My application has been pending for a ling time.

I ordered CBSA and CSIS notes they were not helpful. CSIS says that my screening is in progress and my details cannot be disclosed and the CBSA notes have only 2 security activities.

If this normal? Have you seen a case like this before?

 

[legalfalcon]

@legalfalcon Can you please help.

My GCMS notes show that my eligibility, criminality, medicals is all passed.

I contacted Ralph and his email says that my security is in progress. How long does it take for the security to finish. My application has been pending for a ling time.

I ordered CBSA and CSIS notes they were not helpful. CSIS says that my screening is in progress and my details cannot be disclosed and the CBSA notes have only 2 security activities.

If this normal? Have you seen a case like this before?

If your eligibility is cleared, you do not have tow worry. Security for some applicants take a long time and there unfortunately is no specific timeline within which IRCC / CBSA / CSIS has to conclude the security.

You will have to wait and be patient.

 

[torontob]

The flood of information is the Manual used by the federal agencies. And yes, I rely on them, and NOT on the forums links or google. So you need to correct yourself.

As regards my statement, I repeat it once again. All application go through security, just as they go though eligibility.

As regards misinformation, you earlier were speculating, then I provide you with Federal Government manual, and then you misinterpret the document, misinterpret what I wrote, pick selective words and use words as fear mongering.

You dint even have this information that I have shared. So stop the drama of you know all.



These are not rules, this is a MANUAL. Please read and get to know the difference between Legislation, Regulations, Policy Manuals, and Case laws. This Manual is a 100 page long document with very precise procedures and protocols. Please have the courtesy of reading it. Then read the operation bulletins. Point out where it states that people who have a military record are always sent for security, of those who have military record may be sent to security, do you have list of higher risk countries, or point out where the manual states that people coming form specific countries are sent for security or for that matter, where is it the term, comprehensive security used in the manual?

As regards legislative interpretation about Should, Shall, May etc. There are Supreme Court of Canada Judgments and federal court judgments on this. And yes, the legal interpretations of these words is not the same as dictionary definition.

Go read the manual in its entirety, the elaborate procedure, instead of cherry picking the words from what I shared. I wish that the procedure and law was all about selective reading and picking up one phrase here and there. As regards, fear mongering, it is you who is doing it and pretending as if you know everything, and quoting links on this form. What you are highlighting is the overarching MANDATE. Read the procedure and protocol. Also read the procedure for overseas applicants via a vis inland. It's all in the Manual.

Provide the CSIS paper work? Why are you hiding it until now. Shouldn't it have been the first thing you should have cited instead of forum links?

And FYI, the paperwork is called legislation, regulations / rules, manuals, operation bulletins or a caselaw interpreting these.



These are not snap shots, there are the extracts from the the Manual, a federal government document that I have cited.



What you highlighted in the sentence:

"When warranted, officer's

Now read the remaining: refer application in accordance with instructions provided in this manual to the CBSA and screening partners for security screening."

If nothing else, at least read the extract in its entirety, that I have posted. When it is warranted, is not something that is discretionary, it is clearly written in the manual and how it is to be determined is also clearly stated. Similarly, Mandate of agencies is not the same as manual instructions.



I am not implying or pretending, as a LICENSED (yes licensed, and I don't need a disclaimer, maybe you do) professional, it's not my job to educate you and provide you with public documents. Do your due diligence and read it. You are more than welcome to keep beating the drum of what you know based on Google or this forum. As regards my professional and ethical obligations, I know them better than you do and the last thing I need is lessons from you on that. As regards my license or that of people associated with GET GCMS, you are more than welcome to file a complaint, if eligible, with the Law Society of Ontario, or IRCC, and you will have your answer.

As regards bias, may be you can google how many GCMS notes providers are there. Who uses which website, is their prerogative. When you can't quote any law, regulations, or cite any manual, the best thing is to start hurling abuses at others, hiding behind a pseudonym, and you have championed this art..

What I had to state, I have. I never replied to your comments to begin with. To whom I replied, it is for him to judge what he needs to do with his application.

And as for you, you can keep beating the drums of that you know all, and cherry picking what suits your argument. Just because you provided a bunch of baloney, which I pointed out as incorrect and misleading information, does not mean you have to blabber till eternity.

You can do much better, just if you read things in its entirety and not cherry pick what suits you.

All the best!

Not every file goes to CSIS. I will post CSIS letters but it will cost you $1000. Everyone here will enjoy a challenge too.

*Or take the way out by retracting, denying what you said, or don't agree to bet.

 

[torontob]

@legalfalcon Can you please help.

My GCMS notes show that my eligibility, criminality, medicals is all passed.

I contacted Ralph and his email says that my security is in progress. How long does it take for the security to finish. My application has been pending for a ling time.

I ordered CBSA and CSIS notes they were not helpful. CSIS says that my screening is in progress and my details cannot be disclosed and the CBSA notes have only 2 security activities.

If this normal? Have you seen a case like this before?

3 months for CSIS for most cases. Search this forum for others who posted same process. Once CSIS is done, CBSA shouldn't be long. Overall, CBSA take 1, 3, 6, or 12 months to finalize. You will fall within one of those time periods, otherwise, you will go to 18 months or longer based on what others reported here. Though you have nothing to worry with this process unless you suspect something.

 

[canadacalling777]

If your eligibility is cleared, you do not have tow worry. Security for some applicants take a long time and there unfortunately is no specific timeline within which IRCC / CBSA / CSIS has to conclude the security.

You will have to wait and be patient.

Thank you for your reply. Will requesting GCMS notes help. I already have ordered GCMS notes in the past, should I order them again?

 

[legalfalcon]

Thank you for your reply. Will requesting GCMS notes help. I already have ordered GCMS notes in the past, should I order them again?

Requesting GCMS notes at this stage will be pointless and of no use. With your GCMS notes you have already determined that your eligibility is passed. And since your CSIS notes state that your security screening is underway, until it is concluded, CSIS will not release any information. Once it is concluded by CSIS, they can provide your with the date when it was transmitted to CBSA, which will then submit the entire report to IRCC.

You will have to give it some time and be patient.

 

[canadacalling777]

Requesting GCMS notes at this stage will be pointless and of no use. With your GCMS notes you have already determined that your eligibility is passed. And since your CSIS notes state that your security screening is underway, until it is concluded, CSIS will not release any information. Once it is concluded by CSIS, they can provide your with the date when it was transmitted to CBSA, which will then submit the entire report to IRCC.

You will have to give it some time and be patient.

Thank you. Can I PM you. I have some ore questions that I want to ask but not comfortable asking here.

 

[legalfalcon]

Thank you. Can I PM you. I have some ore questions that I want to ask but not comfortable asking here.

Sure, send me a PM. I may not be able to respond immediately, but will get back to you soon.