Let's be clear, I try to help. Whether my manner comes across condescending or otherwise, I try.
Whatever your problems are, I hope they get resolved and things improve soon.
BUT your accusation that IRCC does "
what it wants" and does not "
seem to be accountable to anyone"
is simply WRONG, not at all in the ballpark of truth. It is misleading. There are good reasons for other forum participants to come to a site like this to obtain information, insight, illumination, something that might help them navigate the system better, perhaps even find ways to resolve problems they are having, or at the least be better able to understand what is happening. Sure, some come to whine. That's OK. Some sharing the pain can help. But just because things are off the rails in one individual's case does not justify misleadingly trashing the whole system, misleadingly discouraging others from pursuing resolution of their problems or finding help in a forum like this. For most issues there is a path toward resolution. Sure, the outcome will not always be favourable let alone happen on an individual's preferred timeline.
But IRCC is bound by rules and largely follows those rules. IRCC is accountable. Litigating accountability is not always easy. It can be expensive. And as such processes tend to be throughout the world, in the best of places, yep, the process can take time. Especially during a global crisis.
As I said, the Canadian immigration system works.
Not perfectly. Suggestions it is arbitrary or capricious, or that IRCC is not accountable,
are NOT accurate. On the contrary, the
vast, vast majority of IRCC clients can reasonably expect to be treated fairly, without discrimination, according to formally adopted and known rules. And if not, there are avenues for recourse. That is, accountability. Including multiple layers of review.
Which leads to recognizing the wide variety of immigration related issues, and noting that there are various venues within this site for discussing such issues, concerns, problems, procedures, depending on what aspect of immigration is involved. There are different conferences here where, respectively, information and insight and navigational aids are generously shared. I mostly focus on grant citizenship applications, typically the more complicated and litigated aspects of that, and on matters related to Permanent Residents maintaining PR status.
In any event, I do not intend to engage in argument. Or a
tit-for-tat whining pity party. We all have our burdens to bear. If yours are heavier than mine, I am sorry that is the case; that said, I will acknowledge mine are heavy enough for me as is, and I think it is fair to protest they do not warrant snide remarks intending offense about how nice that is for me. The fact your burdens may be heavier than mine does not justify or excuse trying to bully me. Or anyone else here.
As
@PMM aptly noted, those complaining about the current PR card application processing times should "
realize that there is a Pandemic" and that "
Processing a PR card is not exactly an essential service at this time."
That tells the current tale about "PR Card Processing Times as per CIC website," which is the subject of this topic. Before mid-March, for a fairly long period of time the PR card application processing timeline, for most, had been less than two months, sometimes significantly less. It may be a long while before the processing time line gets back anywhere near that. An appropriate and fair response to those who challenge this is, again, they should "
realize that there is a Pandemic" and that "
Processing a PR card is not exactly an essential service at this time."
That is just how it is. It is
NOT about a bureaucracy doing "
what it wants" or not being accountable.
For your edification: A very small sample of instances, involving a variety of applications and issues, in which the IAD and Federal Court held IRCC accountable for falling short of requisite reasonableness or procedural fairness (including where matters are remanded due to the failure of the applicant's own lawyer to protect the procedural fairness of the process):
Federal Court decisions:
Ismail v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 647 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/j7xgg
Ouansa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 632 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/j7zwv
An v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 606 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/j7qfv
Douglas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 770 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/htkmf
Leung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 41 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/gn0z5
Mclawrence v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 867 (CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/gk8vv
IRB IAD decisions:
Yang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 CanLII 24451 (CA IRB),
http://canlii.ca/t/j63m2
Ghotra v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 129409 (CA IRB)
http://canlii.ca/t/j54qm
Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 CanLII 37238 (CA IRB),
http://canlii.ca/t/j80mk
X (Re), 2019 CanLII 136135 (CA IRB),
http://canlii.ca/t/j7wll
The above is a more or less random sample, a small sample. Simply illustrating that NO, IRCC can NOT do what it wants, and, rather, that IRCC is indeed ACCOUNTABLE . . . for, at the very least, the reasonableness of its decisions AND procedural fairness. While most protests to the contrary tend to be sour grapes, sure, the system is not perfect. Some injustice occurs. A lot of people, including many who contribute to this forum, make a concerted effort to minimize the injustices and amplify what works. Which is something I try to be a part of in my limited, far shy of perfect way.