When did you actually submit your citizenship application ??
Wondering, did you send any webform to IRCC concerning above delay; and did you get any reply?
Last edited:
No update from IRCC on citizenship oath ceremony. Next steps?
- Thread starter Zero-Transparency
- Start date
Wondering, did you send any webform to IRCC concerning above delay; and did you get any reply?
Hello, I need your opinion. I was supposed to take the oath on March 25, in Edmonton. Now I'm waiting for the invitation to the virtual oath ceremony. In the meantime I have moved from Edmonton to Calgary, what do you think, is it better to keep my old address in my ECAS (in Edmonton), announcing this change on the occasion of the oath, or to adapt the current address, risking to have a longer waiting time? Thank You!
@Mike 77 Address needs to be updated (contact ircc thru webform). It doesn't impact on your processing time as long as you move to a new address within the same province. It does affect the processing time, if you move or relocate to another province as your file would need to be transferred to that province's local ircc office.
Hope it helps.
If it makes the people in here waiting for the oath invite feel any better, I still did not even receive a test invite since Oct 2017 (my application date.) And now because of the ongoing Covid situation, my lawyer can't even file a complaint nor proceed with writ of mandamus. So in case you are frustrated for not receiving an oath invite yet, remember there is someone like me in a worst situation than you.
Best of of luck to all.
Best of of luck to all.
Your case seems to be a non-routine. We're concerned about routine cases, clients who have already passed test/interview and waiting for oath invite.
Last edited:
I am a nurse working frontline Covid19 since February until present, I got DM in early March and still no oath invitation as yet, so I dont buy the essential worker excuse, we are all waiting, I also have a few colleagues who are also waiting, that are essential workers.
Test@ Feb 6th, 2020, DM @Feb 13th 2020 in Nova Scotia, no news since then. March 2020 I moved to Ontario, then@June 5th, I told IRCC my new address then they updated in ECAS. I call IRCC July 3rd, they said my file is IN TRANSIT. It is a month passed, my file is still IN TRANSIT, why so long? They said my file will be transferred to Mississauga
Yes, it is true.
Although "over 1,000 virtual oath ceremonies have taken place since April 1" however, I believe there are thousands of citizenship clients waiting to receive video oath invitations.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/virtual-citizenship-ceremony-canada-day-1.5634179
Pathetic. I just had changed address from one city to another in the same province. ircc took 2 months to update it.
It seems to be sort of randomly inviting the ceremony ready clients for video oaths. It doesn't look like first come, first served and/or essential workers.
Which is why, IRCC didn't explicitly define any criteria for virtual oath ceremonies, except an implicit or vague announcement "We’re now inviting some applicants to do a video oath ceremony....".
These observations are directed at the reasoning process . . . how and to what extent we, in the public, can learn about how IRCC processes applications. A narrow aspect of things MOST WILL WANT TO SKIP.
Yes, what we can know is limited. Much of what goes on is confidential. Even more of what goes on is simply obscured in bureaucratic processing. We can learn more about what IRCC is actually doing, in this regard, through the process of making ATI requests (which is different from personal ATIP requests). Which I have done in the past. But that is a labour-intensive and time-consuming project, and can get costly.
But a lot of it is personal, direct reporting, NOT "hear-say." Sure, there is cause for cautiously assessing the accuracy of many reports in this forum, but most personal reporting is at least honest and largely accurate, and to a large extent can be compared to other reports, to discern its relative reliability.
But the core problem, as stated, is indeed extrapolating conclusions broader than even a perfectly accurate report supports. What happened to one person is solid evidence that is what CAN HAPPEN, since it is what did happen. Since it is what can happen, it offers SOME, but not a lot of support to the proposition that is what MIGHT HAPPEN to someone else. At least that is what COULD happen. And, indeed, most often it is just ONE example of ONE of the things that MIGHT HAPPEN. DEPENDING.
The more common version of this flawed reasoning is focusing on a few of the same factors and concluding those will lead to the same or very similar outcome. Reasoning in the form "I was X and Y and Z and this happened, so if you are X and Y and Z that will happen for you too." Way, way, way too many other factors in play, and potential variations in outcome, to rely on this.
BUT NONETHELESS, all these ANECDOTAL REPORTS ARE IMPORTANT SOURCES of INFORMATION.
Leading to . . .
BUT it is overtly inconsistent to claim we do not know what is going on in IRCC but claim, somehow, we know it is random. Or to claim their process "has no relationship" to this or that. If you do not know, you do NOT KNOW.
But we do know some. Which takes us back to the anecdotal reports as important sources of information. We know, for example, that to the extent the reports themselves are accurate (I believe most of those reporting getting scheduled for a virtual oath here are truthfully reporting this, for example, even if not all are truthful), again, they reflect what CAN happen because they are examples of WHAT HAS HAPPENED. And with multiple reports we can map a PARTIAL picture of what is going on.
And we can turn to media reports, the IRCC information online, what we know about the law and procedures themselves, among other sources of information to help us put as much of the picture into focus as possible.
Historically it has often taken us, in the public, from many months to YEARS to figure out some rather significant changes internally at IRCC/CIC, unless they were clearly publicly announced or were a part of publicly made changes (like the adoption of new legislation). There was a gap in YEARS between CIC implementing a stricter approach to the residency requirement when Harper was PM and this becoming widely understood public knowledge (and even then, for years more there was no shortage of forum participants who did not grasp the change had been made, among whom more than a few persisted in making shortfall, almost sure to fail applications . . . to a large extent because some, an increasingly smaller and smaller number, were making successful shortfall applications).
Even a very formal change in procedure like the adoption of OB 407 in 2012, it took over four months for us in the public to even know such a thing had changed processing citizenship applications dramatically and it took much of another year, and a huge amount of effort digging through ATI requests, to learn much about what it did and how it was applied (and even then, much of it remained behind the curtain of confidentiality).
BUT we can and with some effort we are able to learn quite a lot about what goes on at IRCC internally. With some big gaps. And after some time has past. Which again brings up the anecdotal reports: over time, comparing them to one another, following their development, they are indeed a big piece of the puzzle and will eventually help fill in a significant part of the picture.
SIDE NOTE, in particular, re VIRTUAL OATH and oath ceremonies otherwise: This is probably, very probably, a work-in-progress, still very much in the process of change. IRCC is probably experimenting as much as it is actually making progress. So there are likely to be further, and perhaps some bigger changes taking place before a more complete picture of what is happening now emerges.
There is a difference between "first come, first serve" in terms of outcome, of completing the whole process. Which NONE of IRCC's application processing is. Even an application for something so common and simple as extended visitor status can encounter different screening after it is initially opened. BUT nonetheless, it readily appears that MOST (not all) TASK items done at an individual officer or agent level are attended to based on order of receipt, based on place in the queue . . . but some are done within minutes of the task being undertaken, and some are deferred or diverted for this or that additional task, leading to variations in overall timeline for those types of applications.
For citizenship applications, for example, part of what we do know about internal procedures is that right off the top, when the applications are first opened, which we can be fairly assured is in the order of their receipt, some go in one direction, others in another, DEPENDING on this or that. So right there, right in the opening-the-file stage, the order in which applications are processed is affected. Similar events occur at various stages of processing. Perhaps the biggest one is the test-and-interview event itself. For sure, in ordinary times (before Covid) some applicants are immediately scheduled for the oath coming out of the interview, while some others go into a path for this or that further screening, and each of those paths tend to have their timelines. And those respective timelines vary significantly from one local office to another.
It is for sure NOT random. (Again, it is inconsistent to claim NOT knowing what the internal process is and at the same time claim to KNOW it is random.)
MORE RE VIRTUAL OATHS:
It is possible, and indeed highly likely, that there are multiple criteria being used to identify WHO is scheduled for a virtual oath. For example, there are undoubtedly SOME urgent processing requests which IRCC has found compelling and is indeed expediting processing, and for such applicants who were already scheduled for an oath ceremony that had been cancelled, or perhaps were just about to be scheduled for the oath, perhaps these individuals are among those getting scheduled sooner. At the same time it appears that many of those who had already been scheduled for the oath are the primary candidates being scheduled for a virtual oath. How IRCC is picking whom is not clear, but again it is almost certainly NOT random.
I have not seen reports of a virtual oath being scheduled for any candidate other than those who were already scheduled but had that ceremony cancelled, but I have not been following all the reports closely. That noted, it appears clear, from a variety of sources of information, that IRCC is making an effort to get back into a more productive mode and increase the numbers taking the oath, and making an effort to adopt some methods for getting back to administering tests, or at least move in that direction.
Yes, what we can know is limited. Much of what goes on is confidential. Even more of what goes on is simply obscured in bureaucratic processing. We can learn more about what IRCC is actually doing, in this regard, through the process of making ATI requests (which is different from personal ATIP requests). Which I have done in the past. But that is a labour-intensive and time-consuming project, and can get costly.
This is FOR SURE. It is an important observation. There is indeed way too much reasoning based on individual experience in this forum.
But a lot of it is personal, direct reporting, NOT "hear-say." Sure, there is cause for cautiously assessing the accuracy of many reports in this forum, but most personal reporting is at least honest and largely accurate, and to a large extent can be compared to other reports, to discern its relative reliability.
But the core problem, as stated, is indeed extrapolating conclusions broader than even a perfectly accurate report supports. What happened to one person is solid evidence that is what CAN HAPPEN, since it is what did happen. Since it is what can happen, it offers SOME, but not a lot of support to the proposition that is what MIGHT HAPPEN to someone else. At least that is what COULD happen. And, indeed, most often it is just ONE example of ONE of the things that MIGHT HAPPEN. DEPENDING.
The more common version of this flawed reasoning is focusing on a few of the same factors and concluding those will lead to the same or very similar outcome. Reasoning in the form "I was X and Y and Z and this happened, so if you are X and Y and Z that will happen for you too." Way, way, way too many other factors in play, and potential variations in outcome, to rely on this.
BUT NONETHELESS, all these ANECDOTAL REPORTS ARE IMPORTANT SOURCES of INFORMATION.
Leading to . . .
One word in this is especially NOT true. "Randomly." Just because we do not know the criteria or the procedure does NOT make it random. IRCC has its processes. No great powers of divination necessary to recognize there are procedures internally at IRCC even if we, in the public, are not acquainted with them.
BUT it is overtly inconsistent to claim we do not know what is going on in IRCC but claim, somehow, we know it is random. Or to claim their process "has no relationship" to this or that. If you do not know, you do NOT KNOW.
But we do know some. Which takes us back to the anecdotal reports as important sources of information. We know, for example, that to the extent the reports themselves are accurate (I believe most of those reporting getting scheduled for a virtual oath here are truthfully reporting this, for example, even if not all are truthful), again, they reflect what CAN happen because they are examples of WHAT HAS HAPPENED. And with multiple reports we can map a PARTIAL picture of what is going on.
And we can turn to media reports, the IRCC information online, what we know about the law and procedures themselves, among other sources of information to help us put as much of the picture into focus as possible.
Historically it has often taken us, in the public, from many months to YEARS to figure out some rather significant changes internally at IRCC/CIC, unless they were clearly publicly announced or were a part of publicly made changes (like the adoption of new legislation). There was a gap in YEARS between CIC implementing a stricter approach to the residency requirement when Harper was PM and this becoming widely understood public knowledge (and even then, for years more there was no shortage of forum participants who did not grasp the change had been made, among whom more than a few persisted in making shortfall, almost sure to fail applications . . . to a large extent because some, an increasingly smaller and smaller number, were making successful shortfall applications).
Even a very formal change in procedure like the adoption of OB 407 in 2012, it took over four months for us in the public to even know such a thing had changed processing citizenship applications dramatically and it took much of another year, and a huge amount of effort digging through ATI requests, to learn much about what it did and how it was applied (and even then, much of it remained behind the curtain of confidentiality).
BUT we can and with some effort we are able to learn quite a lot about what goes on at IRCC internally. With some big gaps. And after some time has past. Which again brings up the anecdotal reports: over time, comparing them to one another, following their development, they are indeed a big piece of the puzzle and will eventually help fill in a significant part of the picture.
SIDE NOTE, in particular, re VIRTUAL OATH and oath ceremonies otherwise: This is probably, very probably, a work-in-progress, still very much in the process of change. IRCC is probably experimenting as much as it is actually making progress. So there are likely to be further, and perhaps some bigger changes taking place before a more complete picture of what is happening now emerges.
It almost CERTAINLY does matter when someone submitted their application.
There is a difference between "first come, first serve" in terms of outcome, of completing the whole process. Which NONE of IRCC's application processing is. Even an application for something so common and simple as extended visitor status can encounter different screening after it is initially opened. BUT nonetheless, it readily appears that MOST (not all) TASK items done at an individual officer or agent level are attended to based on order of receipt, based on place in the queue . . . but some are done within minutes of the task being undertaken, and some are deferred or diverted for this or that additional task, leading to variations in overall timeline for those types of applications.
For citizenship applications, for example, part of what we do know about internal procedures is that right off the top, when the applications are first opened, which we can be fairly assured is in the order of their receipt, some go in one direction, others in another, DEPENDING on this or that. So right there, right in the opening-the-file stage, the order in which applications are processed is affected. Similar events occur at various stages of processing. Perhaps the biggest one is the test-and-interview event itself. For sure, in ordinary times (before Covid) some applicants are immediately scheduled for the oath coming out of the interview, while some others go into a path for this or that further screening, and each of those paths tend to have their timelines. And those respective timelines vary significantly from one local office to another.
It is for sure NOT random. (Again, it is inconsistent to claim NOT knowing what the internal process is and at the same time claim to KNOW it is random.)
MORE RE VIRTUAL OATHS:
It is possible, and indeed highly likely, that there are multiple criteria being used to identify WHO is scheduled for a virtual oath. For example, there are undoubtedly SOME urgent processing requests which IRCC has found compelling and is indeed expediting processing, and for such applicants who were already scheduled for an oath ceremony that had been cancelled, or perhaps were just about to be scheduled for the oath, perhaps these individuals are among those getting scheduled sooner. At the same time it appears that many of those who had already been scheduled for the oath are the primary candidates being scheduled for a virtual oath. How IRCC is picking whom is not clear, but again it is almost certainly NOT random.
I have not seen reports of a virtual oath being scheduled for any candidate other than those who were already scheduled but had that ceremony cancelled, but I have not been following all the reports closely. That noted, it appears clear, from a variety of sources of information, that IRCC is making an effort to get back into a more productive mode and increase the numbers taking the oath, and making an effort to adopt some methods for getting back to administering tests, or at least move in that direction.
Last edited:
Has your online status changed to Decision Made or is it still In Progress?
IRCC outlines the priority order on its website,
We’re prioritizing applications from
- Canadians trying to return to Canada
- vulnerable people
- people who perform or support essential services