As I previously cautioned, the explanation tends to elaborate more than is necessary.
The gist of my previous post was largely to explain and reinforce what
@Seym nailed: best approach is to submit a new application.
Fairly simple.
If you understand that, no need to wrestle with my clumsy attempts to explain things. But, in case you want to consider the explanation . . .
A bigger margin over the minimum presence requirement is simply insurance . . . not just in terms of outcome, but in terms of reducing the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, and in terms of just overall making a stronger case, a better impression. For most qualified applicants (for whom there is no doubt about the outcome) it is mostly about the latter, about making a better impression, a stronger case, about reducing the risk a total stranger bureaucrat will have questions and initiate non-routine processing that will result in longer processing timelines, potentially a lot longer timeline.
Simply this: applying with a bigger margin is better, at least usually. Make no mistake, a better impression can matter.
That is, if you have been in Canada in the meantime, and you correspondingly have a bigger margin over the minimum physical presence requirement now as a result, that is enough to easily tip the scales toward submitting a new application rather than trying to wrangle a better spot in the queue (which is NOT likely anyway) with the original application.
If you are not persuaded that a bigger margin matters much, that's your call. You might consider, however, reading some topics here where tales of woe are told by QUALIFIED applicants bogged down in non-routine processing.
Well, you sort of, only sort of, have suffered the disadvantage of losing three months. The actual timeline varies considerably and many other factors influence how it goes, and especially now those "three months" are not likely to make much difference.
Nonetheless, there is NO WAY to regain three months. And it largely does not matter. How long it will take to process your personal application will depend on many, many other factors, although of course a key factor depends on when you get a
complete application into process . . . and the timeline going forward will NOT be influenced much if at all by whether IRCC processes the original application or a new application. You may not believe this. I offer it for what it is worth. But the odds are high that regardless which approach you take, overall it will take just as much longer from now to reach the oath . . .
. . . noting, however, if IRCC does not accept your explanation, that would mean another period of delay just getting an application into the actual processing stream.
Leading to . . .
There is NO such thing as a January queue.
And again, there is a new, separate queue for each step of the process. The only exception is urgent processing. A separate matter.
It is kind of like getting in a line of traffic on the highway. If something causes you to pull over, best you can do is get back into the stream of traffic sooner rather than later . . . there is no way to get back into line where you were.
Beyond that . . . It warrants being clear about a few things:
-- the "processing standard" of 12 months is generally irrelevant, and currently basically meaningless, and actual processing timelines are now well beyond that, even for the best, fastest, smooth-going applications.
-- -- in contrast, for applications encountering any non-routine processing, it will not be at all surprising if the median timeline is significantly longer than two years.
-- -- ironically, before Covid-19, MOST applications, meaning more than half, were apparently being processed in four to eight months, well less than the "standard;" when I went through the process, the "standard" was 18 months, but mine only took 8 months and for many I took the oath with, it only took 6 months . . . but now, as has happened due to other situational circumstances in the past, actual processing timelines have once again gone long and are going longer and longer.
-- as I previously noted, it is not as if the application is given a queue number based on its original date of arrival; there is NO way your application will be returned to be in a queue with applications which already have AOR status and were received the date yours was originally received. That is NOT going to happen. Not how it works. In fact --
-- -- the BEST that can happen is that the application gets into the queue for the next-step sooner than a new application would; but that will still be AFTER all the other applications which have already received AOR to-date; this could be ahead of other applications so far received but not yet screened for completeness, but will still be behind all those received after the original date yours arrived which have in the meantime gotten AOR, BUT
-- -- again, there is a risk an attempt to get IRCC to process the original application, as is, will either fail, putting you through this process of submitting an application again, or otherwise itself trigger non-routine processing, and thus potentially result in a significantly longer processing timeline
-- -- to be clear about the "best" that can happen: IF IRCC processes your resubmitted, original application, concurrent with how it processes most incomplete applications, in which the applicant needs to add this or that, there is a fair likelihood that these go into a queue to be screened sooner than newly arriving applications . . . so this cuts some of the processing timeline between actual arrival at CPC-Sydney and AOR, but net gain is not much . . .
