GCMS NOTES WELL EXPLAINED HAS NEVER BEFORE UNTIL NOW

[sy_enigma]

Hi there, can you share how you concluded that s.15(1) means that Security screening has passed? Often it only means that the screening process has been exempted from public disclosure. Thanks.

Hi, Refer to the first post at this topic you will find that:
ADMISSIBILITIES

SECURITY S.15(1) is right in the corner

SECURITY:1

UCI: 88885555
Family Name: Nelson
Given name: Cool River
Type: SECURITY
If you see this in your GCMS notes rest assured that your security is completely done and protected. Someone will ask me in the future that Eagle here is my timeline do you think that my security is done? If you have your GCMS notes I will just tell you to come back to this page.

I hope that helps

 

[caipsnotes]

Hi, Refer to the first post at this topic you will find that:
ADMISSIBILITIES

SECURITY S.15(1) is right in the corner

SECURITY:1

UCI: 88885555
Family Name: Nelson
Given name: Cool River
Type: SECURITY
If you see this in your GCMS notes rest assured that your security is completely done and protected. Someone will ask me in the future that Eagle here is my timeline do you think that my security is done? If you have your GCMS notes I will just tell you to come back to this page.

I hope that helps

Ah, thanks for your prompt reply. Thanks for sharing. s15.1 can mean either it's in progress or completed. Having it appear is not conclusive that screening has completed, my understanding. Everyone has different experiences and I appreciate you sharing this.

 

[sy_enigma]

Ah, thanks for your prompt reply. Thanks for sharing. s15.1 can mean either it's in progress or completed. Having it appear is not conclusive that screening has completed, my understanding. Everyone has different experiences and I appreciate you sharing this.

No one can be conclusive at any stages of the process. We only do assumptions and keep hoping, best of luck for you

 

[caipsnotes]

No one can be conclusive at any stages of the process. We only do assumptions and keep hopeIng, best of luck for you

Well said. All the best.

 

[Socceros]

Well said. All the best.

This is on the first page of the thread. plus I sent a webform to make sure and they said it was currently valid.
ADMISSIBILITIES

SECURITY S.15(1) is right in the corner

SECURITY:1




UCI: 88885555
Family Name: Nelson
Given name: Cool River
Type: SECURITY





If you see this in your GCMS notes rest assured that your security is completely done and protected. Someone will ask me in the future that Eagle here is my timeline do you think that my security is done? If you have your GCMS notes I will just tell you to come back to this page.
...

 

[Malka]

Hii what is the meaning of Incoming correspondence that was at provided has been flipped to received in bulk.Incoming information will need to be reviewed at next due date.what it means in gcms notes

 

[Gax]

Hi guys, what does paper file location: p12 means?

 

[Mahmoud.laajimi]

Hi everyone, seeking your help here because I am really confused.

I order my first GCMS notes in January 2020, received them after 30 days:

ASSESSMENTS
Eligibility: Recommend Interview
Security: Not started
HIRV:
Criminality: Not started
Org Crime:
Medical: Passed
Misrepresentation:
Info Sharing: Complete
Other reqs:
Final:


I ordered my second GCMS notes, received them yesterday, after 16 days only:


ASSESSMENTS
Eligibility: Passed
Security:
HIRV:
Criminality: Passed
Org Crime:
Medical: Passed
Misrepresentation:
Info Sharing: Complete
Other reqs:
Final: Approved


What can I understand from "Final: Approved". Also what about the Security, nothing is written next to it !!

(AOR: 2nd September 2019)

 

[Toyda]

Hello Everyone,

I just received my GCMS notes. I found s.16(1)(c) in the Notes section & s.17 in the EDOCS section.

So anyone can explain to me what is it regarding.

Thanks in advance

I have s.17 in the EDOCS section too. Still looking for answers.

 

[subramani_vs]

I received GCMS notes on 27th June. On 24th June, I had received RPRF request and paid the fees. Below are the content that I'm concerned about. It says RR on my eligibility, but the notes from program analyst and the case processing officer are clear and I can see "Met" or "Passed" in every section. I learnt that whenever our PoF is anything other than a bank deposit, it is more likely that it will be marked as “review required” for the officer to make a final determination. Moreover, my info sharing says "System Error". What do you guys reckon from this?

ACTIVITY: 5
Created Date:
Created By:
Updated Date:
Updated By:
Name:
Sub-Activity/Activity Type: 11.2-EE Ml
Field Name: Status
New Value: Review Required
Office: Centralized Intake Office

ASSESSMENTS
Eligibility: Review Required
Security: Not Started
Criminality: Passed
Org Crime:
Medical: Passed
Misrepresentation:
Info Sharing: System Error
Other Reqs.
Final:

 

[Nina12]

I ordered mine but didn’t receive it yet

 

[caipsnotes]

I received GCMS notes on 27th June. On 24th June, I had received RPRF request and paid the fees. Below are the content that I'm concerned about. It says RR on my eligibility, but the notes from program analyst and the case processing officer are clear and I can see "Met" or "Passed" in every section. I learnt that whenever our PoF is anything other than a bank deposit, it is more likely that it will be marked as “review required” for the officer to make a final determination. Moreover, my info sharing says "System Error". What do you guys reckon from this?

ACTIVITY: 5
Created Date:
Created By:
Updated Date:
Updated By:
Name:
Sub-Activity/Activity Type: 11.2-EE Ml
Field Name: Status
New Value: Review Required
Office: Centralized Intake Office

ASSESSMENTS
Eligibility: Review Required
Security: Not Started
Criminality: Passed
Org Crime:
Medical: Passed
Misrepresentation:
Info Sharing: System Error
Other Reqs.
Final:

For eligibility marked RR there should insight you can gather from the "notes" section in the last few pages of the GCMS file, what does it state?

 

[caipsnotes]

I have s.17 in the EDOCS section too. Still looking for answers.

Please see this site https://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/en/investigators-guide-interpreting-act
Related to the Access to Information Act these are exemptions taken by IRCC to withhold information.

Also see page 29 at this link https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/op/op01-eng.pdf

5.27 Security screening of foreign nationals
Sections 15 and 16 of the Access to Information Act may exempt parts of the security screening process
from public access. Officers should read these guidelines in conjunction with chapter IC 1, Security and
Criminal Screening of Immigrants.
Security screening procedures identify persons seeking admission who are, or have been, involved in
espionage, subversion or terrorism, organized crime, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Note that
a security screening clearance does not mean applicants do not have a criminal record.
Officers are responsible for ensuring that persons who may threaten the safety and good order of
Canadian society are denied entry. Officers also help promote international order and justice by denying
use of our territory by such individuals. These goals are important, and strict compliance with security
screening procedures is required to achieve them.
Responsibility for responding to queries about delays in immigration processing rests with the
Department. Applicants or their representatives should not be referred to other federal departments or
agencies that assist in the security or criminality screening of applications.
Officers may refer to the background inquiries carried out by the Department, but specific details of the
process may be exempt from public access. No reference should be made to them explicitly.
Refusal letters should simply quote the part of the Act used to refuse the application. Officers need not
explain the security screening process.

 

[subramani_vs]

For eligibility marked RR there should insight you can gather from the "notes" section in the last few pages of the GCMS file, what does it state?

Do you mean the comments of program analyst and the case processing officer? Below are the details.

REVIEW TYPE: Al 1.2 - CASE PROCESSING AGENT APPLICATION: XXXXXXXXXX REGULATION: PNP: FSW,2020-02-20 1 have reviewed this application based upon the documents submitted by the applicant and the information contained in the file and note the following. RECOMMENDATION: All .2: MET R87: APPEARS TO MEET R75: APPEARS TO MEET R76: selection Criteria - FSW POINTS: APPEARS TO MEET R76: Selection criteria - FUNDS: MEDICAL: ALL VALID Outstanding Documents (Requested): - RPRF ___________________________________________ PNP NOMINATION: - Province of Nomination: SK. -

PNC#: 3052401. - Province matches current residence: No. - Nomination validity: Original. - Case Type: Economic Case. _____________________________________________ Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) CRS Score at invitation to apply (ITA) 883 CRS points minimum score for round: 471 CRS score at application (APR): 889 Total CRS Points Assessed: 883 1 have reviewed the following for CRS points: PA gained points as MARRIED at ITA and APR PA gained points for 3+ year(s) Foreign Work Experience with XXXXXXXXXXX edoc# 363453381 *Skill Transferability* 025 - Foreign Work Experience -Verified _____________________________________________ EDUCATION CREDENTIAL(S) PROVIDED Master's Degree, Computer Applications R75(2)(A) PRIMARY OCCUPATION: NOC 2171 Information Systems Analysts and Consultants WORK EXPERIENCE 1: Foreign Team Lead (NOC: 2171) for XXXXXX R75(2) LETTER OF EMPLOYMENT (eDoc# 363453381): Dated: 2020-01-27 Job Description consistent with lead statement and main duties of declared NOC - YES ___________________________________
FSW POINTS: APPEARS TO MEET FSW score at ITA: 71 1 Min required FSW score: 67 Total FSW Points Assessed: 69 15 - R80 Work Experience - Verified 05 - R83 Adaptability - Verified Spouse has language Proficiency SETTLEMENT FUNDS: CAD $31 309 Verified by statement from: XXXX Bank, Date: 2020-04-09, showing CAD $12 023 Verified by statement from: XXXX Bank, Date: 2020-04-09, showing CAD $1857 Verified by statement from: XXXXX Bank, Date: 2020-04-23, showing CAD $1857 Verified by statement from: Employees' Provident Fund, Date: 2020-01-29, showing CAD $15 565 Family of 4 requires CAD $23 542 __________________________ Family Composition : NO CONCERNS PA MARRIED Marriage certificate is on file PASSPORT EXPIRY:
2022-05-27 SPOUSE/CL ACCOMPANYING PASSPORT EXPIRY: 2025-06-24 DEP 1 born: 2006-08-31, age at lock-in date: 13), ACCOMPANYING Birth cert.: PA and Spouse listed as parents PASSPORT EXPIRY: 2024-08-30 DEP 2 born: 2012-09-03, age at lock-in date: 7), ACCOMPANYING Birth cert.: PA and Spouse listed as parents PASSPORT EXPIRY: 2025-03-19 __________________ INTEGRATED SEARCH (FOSS/GCMS): PA

No trace in GCMS/FOSS other than present application SPOUSE/CL No trace in GCMS/FOSS other than present application DEP I NO trace in GCMS/FOSS other than present application DEP 2 No trace in GCMS/FOSS other than present application


REVIEW TYPE: Program Assistant APPLICATION XXXXXXXX REGULATION: PNP I have reviewed this application based upon the documents submitted by the applicant and the information contained in the file and note the following. MIN.SCORE: 471 CRS SCORE: 883 Principal Applicant Application Promoted: New UCI Spouse Application Promoted: New UCI Dep 1 Application Promoted: New UCI Dep 2 Application Promoted: New UCI Primary Applicant Medical Attached to UCI: Yes Spouse Medical Attached to UCI: Yes Dep 1 Medical Attached to UCI: Yes Dep 2 Medical Attached to UCI: Yes Client Fees: Verified -—-LANGUAGES-—- Principal Applicant English- IELTS and Met Threshold & Verified Spouse English- IELTS and Verified —-EDUCATION-- Primary Applicant ECA report Verified on issuing agency website; foreign credential confirmed on ECA site ECA Canadian Equivalency Summary reported by issuing agency as Master's degree Foreign credential provided Spouse Foreign credential provided CERTIFICATE—— Primary Applicant India police certificate: Provided-NRT RIO OK Recommendation: Pass Criminality Spouse India police certificate: Provided-NRT RIO OK Recommendation: Pass Criminality —-—AGE-—- Applicant's age reviewed and No Change from ITA to e-APR DOCUMENTS SET FOR REVIEW—- Client Information

 

[armoured]

I have s.17 in the EDOCS section too. Still looking for answers.

Some information but I warn - I am speculating based on what is publicly available. For example, here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/access-information/access-information-manual.html#cha11_10

s.17 is an exemption from disclosing information under the ATIP act that refers to 'safety of individuals.'

Again I underline, I do not know details, this is no more than an informed guess.

Short form, if you read the information above, it is about the possibility that disclosing the information might potentially threaten an individual.

There are a number of examples listed in the example above, but mostly - repeat, mostly - they are about disclosing the name of individuals (or info that would allow one to figure out who that individual is, or their location, or other relevant information).

The most common example might be related to a confidential informant.

Now to head into the territory of "I don't know but here's why it might be completely normal and no need to worry" - a lot of the exemptions are related to info from other agencies, sources and methods, etc. It could be completely innocuous (in specific relation to an immigration file eg your specific file) if the relevant document names someone who otherwise should not be disclosed.

I could also come up with examples and fantasies about why it might be negative information (for the purposes of the immigration application), but that would also be pure speculation.

Short form, this does not tell you much - and it would be hard to figure out what the issue is from a plain ATIP request. Chances are it's completely innocuous - they have some information that names someone only distantly related to your case. (Eg. sources and methods can be totally boring stuff like where they got a report that says "no issue."). Or it could be more significant, but that's probably more rare. It may make a lot more sense with info about the applicant (country, work history, etc), but even that may be misleading and just raw speculation.

Main takeaway: it is probably not worth worrying about the specific section or issue unless you have a reason to believe security / background checks are a problem for you.

Again, not an expert, so I could be completely offbase. At any rate, the exemption does refer to 'safety of individuals.'