While I am shy of certain, it appears that SO FAR all the virtual oath ceremonies scheduled are for citizenship candidates (not just "applicants" but past the stage where they become "candidates") who were previously scheduled for the oath.
It remains fairly obvious that unless you were already scheduled for the oath, yep, there is going to be a more or less long wait ahead.
For those who were not already, previously, scheduled for the oath, but whose application passed the "Decision Made" stage, it is not clear how this is going to go for them. This is more complicated and I will address it in more depth below. For those whose application was still at any stage BEFORE "Decision Made," it is clear, it is going to be a good long while before getting to take the oath. Some, maybe just some, might get there before the end of this year, but for most it appears it is going to be a rather long while.
For now it is very likely the BIG DIFFERENCE depends on whether or not the applicant passed the stage in which citizenship was formally granted. At that stage in the process, the "applicant" becomes a citizenship "candidate." The only thing left is actually taking the oath. We know that anyone who has been scheduled for the oath belongs to this group, that is, is a citizenship "candidate."
What remains a BIG UNKNOWN is whether IRCC and the Citizenship Commission will, for those who had not already attained "candidate" status prior to the Covid-19 lock-down, begin virtual oath ceremonies, or when they will resume in-person ceremonies. And you are probably correct, for the majority this will likely mean continuing to wait for MONTHS more . . . and right again, "if not longer."
Urgent processing is separate. Who or why or even what urgent processing involves, currently, is rather unclear. IRCC online information still indicates that those with compelling need can and should make a request for urgent processing, implicitly indicating that IRCC is expediting some cases. But what this currently means is especially unclear. Regarding this aspect it warrants recognizing that what IRCC will consider as "urgent" is almost certainly far more narrow and limited than what most who participate in this forum believe is "urgent." That is, it is very likely the number of individuals who meet IRCC's criteria for providing expedited processing is way, way fewer than the number of those who believe or assert they should be given urgent processing. For purposes of the vast majority of applicants, this is NOT likely to help getting to the oath sooner.
LONGER, more In-depth Observations About Being a Citizenship Candidate Versus Still an Applicant:
There is a very likely reason why IRCC and the Citizenship Commission have implemented measures to administer the oath in virtual ceremonies to citizenship *CANDIDATES*. Which actually has been discussed here already but not much in-depth. These are individuals who have already been granted citizenship. The only remaining step for them to be a citizen is the taking of the oath.
IRCC has NO discretion to withhold citizenship from these individuals. The law mandates the consummation of the grant of citizenship. The law does not mandate the government do what is unreasonable, so this does not mean such individuals must be administered the oath immediately. But it does mean that the oath must be administered within a reasonable time. What is a "reasonable time" during a crisis like the current one is not easily determined. But there is a very strong argument, that is an argument rooted in the law and its approach to standards of reasonableness and procedural fairness (which tends to be more narrow, more narrow by a lot, than what many in the forum advocate in regards to what is reasonable or fair), that at the least the Minister is required to pursue reasonable means to carry out this mandate.
Thus, it is likely, this mandate is what pushed IRCC and the Citizenship Commission to develop and implement the virtual oath alternative. In effect they HAD to do something to move the process towards completion for AT LEAST anyone who had already been granted citizenship.
WHAT I DO NOT KNOW about this is WHO precisely this applies to; that is, WHO is now a "CANDIDATE" for citizenship, no longer just an applicant.
The definition is simple enough: qualified applicants who have been GRANTED citizenship, but who have not yet taken the oath, are citizenship candidates.
Thus, for example, we know that those who have been scheduled for the oath, YES, they are clearly candidates. And so far we see these individuals being scheduled for a virtual ceremony. In what order, based on what criteria, that is not known. But recognizing that for any forum participant here it is likely there are many dozens, probably hundreds, maybe even a thousand or more additional applicants who are at a very similar stage of processing, it is readily inferred that just scheduling and completing the virtual oath ceremony for this group, that is all those who had been scheduled for the oath but the ceremony was cancelled, is itself going to take a good long while.
In contrast, for any applicant who does NOT have a "Decision Made" as yet, it is almost certain that they are indeed still "applicants," not "candidates," not yet granted citizenship (that is, a Citizenship Officer, as the Minister's Delegate, has not yet made the formal grant of citizenship), and this group of applicants probably have a rather long wait still . . . a significant amount of resuming processing will need to take place BEFORE these applicants will again have their application move to the next step. And until that happens, they will NOT be scheduled to take the oath, virtually or otherwise.
Which leads to the IN-BETWEEN group, which it appears includes you. Those whose GCMS file shows a "Decision Made" but who had NOT yet been scheduled for the oath.
If "Decision Made" means the Citizenship Officer has made the formal grant of citizenship, those in this category should soon follow those now being scheduled for a virtual oath and be the next group to be scheduled for a virtual oath (unless in-person ceremonies are, in some way, resumed before that happens). BUT I am NOT sure that "Decision Made" status means this. It could mean that a decision to approve a grant of citizenship has been made and the applicant's file is then in queue for the Citizenship Officer to complete the process by formally granting citizenship and scheduling the oath. These individuals would, then, still be "applicants," not "candidates," and there would be less procedural fairness pressure to proceed to complete the process.
I DO NOT KNOW what the actual status is when there is a DECISION MADE. That is, I do NOT know if this means
-- the grant of citizenship has already been made, "decision made" referring to the grant of citizenship; or
-- there is still the formal grant to be made, the "decision made" meaning a decision approving a grant
I apprehend it is more likely it is the latter. But this is based on indirect factors, the most salient one being that before the impact of Covid-19, we saw many reports from applicants who had a "decision made" but who, nonetheless, sometimes still had very long wait times before being scheduled for the oath, and some suggestions that sometimes these individuals were subject to waiting on getting updated RCMP or CSIS clearances. Suggesting the individual, in effect, had a decision made "approving" him or her for a grant of citizenship, but not yet had been actually granted citizenship.
What I am clumsily trying to say is that it appears that when a grant of citizenship is made the individual is actually scheduled for the oath, and thus those not yet scheduled for the oath are still at a stage PRIOR to the actual grant, even if there is a Decision Made approving them for a grant. Not sure of this. But that seems more likely.
Nonetheless, this group, those for whom there is a "Decision Made," they should see progress toward being scheduled for the oath, virtually or in-person, in at least the somewhat near future, definitely much, much sooner than those that had not reached this stage yet. The latter probably still have a rather long if not a very long wait in front of them.
Last edited:
