GCMC - Routine (or) Non-Routine

[MrChazz]

As noted before, if and when you need to do something, to make some decision, to take some action, IRCC will give you notice. As long as it is clear the application is "in process" the applicant's role is to watch for notices or requests, and to WAIT. (Well, the applicant is also required to notify IRCC if there are any changes in the information provided in the application; change of address for example, or being charged with a crime.)

If there is a problem there is no more than a remote chance your copy of GCMS records will illuminate much if anything more than you already know or what you will be notified of by IRCC relatively soon.

Revisiting the "routine" versus "non-routine" label:

Context matters. Unfortunately, anecdotal reports often leave out important context. It warrants noting, for example, that the report by @newbie89 indicates the reference to non-routine is in "notes," which are likely comments made to the file. So, for whatever reason, in some context that is not at all apparent, assuming the report is accurate (noting too that there is very little contextual information regarding the situation reported by @newbie89), someone looking at the application referenced by @newbie89 noted it was "non-routine." Why that note was made, that is not clear. What it means is that agent entering that comment noted something had been done in processing the application that is in addition to what is done in processing all applications (@newbie89 also reports the application is "on hold," which is significant but without more context what that is about is not at all clear).

That does NOT mean that the @newbie89 application has "non-routine" status. As @rajkamalmohanram responded to your OP query:

There are no tags on the GCMS notes that would classify an application as routine or non-routine. Routine/Non-routine is not exactly an application status - It is just an understanding that is based on the facts of the case.​

I have noted similarly, in slightly different terms, that the terms "routine" and "non-routine" are merely descriptive. A citizenship application can be described as "non-routine" if there is any action taken on the file that is not in the regular (routine) stream of processing citizenship applications, that is, a procedure that does not apply to all applicants. Just a fingerprint request means the application can be described as "non-routine" because not all applicants get a FP request; but a FP request may actually have very little impact on how things go or how long the processing will take.

SUMMARY: the fact that an application can be described as "non-routine" illuminates very little if anything. What really matters is what about the application is "non-routine." Full blown RQ, problematic, lengthy timeline ahead. FP request, maybe minor bump, maybe a signal of an expanded prohibitions investigation, but usually just a minor bump. Application "on hold," that is a tough one unless and until more context is known.

NOTE: this discussion is one of the main reasons why I dislike how common and frequent these requests for copies of GCMS records have become. More questions are raised than answered by a huge margin, and (with some exceptions) largely unnecessary questions tending to cause distraction and unnecessarily elevate worries among qualified applicants with little no reason to worry, other than as to how slow the process is these days.

CAVEAT: Of course I cannot give you a guarantee there is no significant problem in your application. No one can. As noted elsewhere, if there is a significant problem odds are you already know, or with a little objective review would know, what issues might be lurking. In the meantime, there are no more than remote odds your copy of GCMS records will reveal the problem, if there is one.




Apart from the obvious, that not all "views" are created equal, I and many others find value (a good deal actually) in reading the early 18th century poetry of Alexander Pope

'Tis hard to say, if greater want of skill​

Appear in writing or in judging ill;​

but I do not pretend it is of use in making decisions when dealing with IRCC. That said, among its many threads of wisdom and insight, Pope's poem "An Essay on Criticism" does make the point that misguided and more so criticism derived from bad intent does more harm than bad writing itself. Which helps to put some of the derision posted here in perspective. Of course that poem in particular is far more often quoted for the line "fools rush in . . ."

I do, however, make a concerted effort to identify and distinguish what is my "view" from the information I post. Additionally, to the consternation of some (apparently those with short attention spans and some difficulty scrolling; otherwise why not just pass on by), the reasoning underlying most of my "views" is shared, explained, so those interested can judge the value for themselves (or for those not interested, scroll on by).

I was more or less invited to this particular topic regarding questions about "triage" criteria. No need to unravel what the GCMS notes might reveal about the triage assessment since, foremost, the important information will be redacted given that the current triage criteria are strictly confidential (not even revealed to Federal Court justices if the application ends up contested in the courts), but additionally because if the triage criteria trigger sufficient reason-to-question-residency the applicant will get a RQ-related request in due course. In contrast, if not, if the triage assessment does not trigger RQ-related processing, it has no effect on processing the application.

Otherwise, what some find interesting, and what some find of value, is separate from what is useful for those trying to best navigate their way through the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. Qualified applicants who properly and completely provide information in their application, who timely and appropriately respond to notices and requests, do not need to obtain a copy of their GCMS records, which (with exceptions, another separate, tending to be lengthy tangent) will rarely, if at all, reveal information the applicant can use to make decisions or take action or even to forecast how much longer the process will take.

Sigh. Another book-length essay to say a couple of very straightforward things, for which two or three sentences would suffice. Where do you get the time? EI?

 

[dpenabill]

Sigh. Another book-length essay to say a couple of very straightforward things, for which two or three sentences would suffice. Where do you get the time? EI?

Your point appears to merely be about criticizing me, which seems to be the point of much of what you post.

Here's the thing, it's no secret I have an inability to be succinct. This is one of my many, very many flaws and failings. My _____ is tiny too. Perhaps like some people's imagination (reminds me of the not-so-illuminating "sigh"). In fact, about the only person more pathetic than me would be someone who takes the time to snipe at me. That is really wasting time.

But I try to help as best I can. When I can. Most of my habits were formed more than a half century ago (including back in the 1950s when I learned, at least usually but with exceptions, to ignore bullies poking fun at those of us in the "special" class; might be special, but it ain't that hard to know the score). Yeah, I have been around waxing long a long while. So what you see is what you get. The best I got. FWIW.

If my posts are a problem, maybe you could get a parent or older sibling to help you with your devices, maybe learn to scroll. Ain't hard. My great-grandchildren can do it.

 

[MrChazz]

Your point appears to merely be about criticizing me, which seems to be the point of much of what you post.

Here's the thing, it's no secret I have an inability to be succinct. This is one of my many, very many flaws and failings. My _____ is tiny too. Perhaps like some people's imagination (reminds me of the not-so-illuminating "sigh"). In fact, about the only person more pathetic than me would be someone who takes the time to snipe at me. That is really wasting time.

But I try to help as best I can. When I can. Most of my habits were formed more than a half century ago (including back in the 1950s when I learned, at least usually but with exceptions, to ignore bullies poking fun at those of us in the "special" class; might be special, but it ain't that hard to know the score). Yeah, I have been around waxing long a long while. So what you see is what you get. The best I got. FWIW.

If my posts are a problem, maybe you could get a parent or older sibling to help you with your devices, maybe learn to scroll. Ain't hard. My great-grandchildren can do it.

Sigh. Yet again, more of the same ... but this time lengthy paragraphs that basically say nothing at all. Except perhaps .... 1950s and great-grandchildren, huh? OK, now I understand why and how you have so much time on your hands. But to spend it writing unread volumes on immigration websites? Never mind. To each his own, I suppose. Scribble away, buddy!

 

[canvisa13]

And also in 2nd page of GCMS notes, under 'APPLICATION Assignment' section, all fields are blank (or) empty. is it like this for all GCMS notes that these fields are emtpy?

Due date:
Assigned By:
Assigned To:

@rajkamalmohanram @harirajmohan

 

[harirajmohan]

And also in 2nd page of GCMS notes, under 'APPLICATION Assignment' section, all fields are blank (or) empty. is it like this for all GCMS notes that these fields are emtpy?

Due date:
Assigned By:
Assigned To:

@rajkamalmohanram @harirajmohan

2 notes from May and Jul dont have assignment but i received test invite in June.
So possibly they dont assign, possibly they pick up the file and assign it to themselves till completion of task or they dont even need to assign anyone to work on the files like we saw it in case file.

Whats the paper file location in second page?

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

And also in 2nd page of GCMS notes, under 'APPLICATION Assignment' section, all fields are blank (or) empty. is it like this for all GCMS notes that these fields are emtpy?

Due date:
Assigned By:
Assigned To:

@rajkamalmohanram @harirajmohan

Yup, this is empty in my notes as well. For some reason, they don't want to disclose the due date set on the whole application. Weird.

 

[canvisa13]

2 notes from May and Jul dont have assignment but i received test invite in June.
So possibly they dont assign, possibly they pick up the file and assign it to themselves till completion of task or they dont even need to assign anyone to work on the files like we saw it in case file.

Whats the paper file location in second page?

In 2nd Page, it says Office: CPC Sydney but the 'Location:' is blank. What the Location supposed to be? is it Scarbro (which listed as secondary office)

 

[harirajmohan]

In 2nd Page, it says Office: CPC Sydney but the 'Location:' is blank. What the Location supposed to be? is it Scarbro (which listed as secondary office)

I am still trying to analyze on who gets the file.
I changed the address but still shows the old office as primary but location shows in-transit. So i will know in next notes on which office gets the file.
May be they are still in transit mode hence locations not updated.

But before the address change, the primary location has the paper file.

 

[canvisa13]

I am still trying to analyze on who gets the file.
I changed the address but still shows the old office as primary but location shows in-transit. So i will know in next notes on which office gets the file.
May be they are still in transit mode hence locations not updated.

But before the address change, the primary location has the paper file.

Ok. Seems they may have lost my physical file after entering it into GCMS, because it never got to local office even after 2 years. It is crazy that primary office is still CPC-Sydney. I never came across any other case either old or new in this forum with same situation. Most of the files are transferred to local office with in 1 year even in this pandemic time. My file either stuck on someone's desk (or) lost in time. Crazy times.

 

[harirajmohan]

Ok. Seems they may have lost my physical file after entering it into GCMS, because it never got to local office even after 2 years. It is crazy that primary office is still CPC-Sydney. I never came across any other case either old or new in this forum with same situation. Most of the files are transferred to local office with in 1 year even in this pandemic time. My file either stuck on someone's desk (or) lost in time. Crazy times.

2 years is too much.
What are the options you thought about it? Can you think of applying second time while its pending(or after withdrawing it)?

 

[canvisa13]

2 years is too much.
What are the options you thought about it? Can you think of applying second time while its pending(or after withdrawing it)?

Not sure what to do now. Will wait and see till end of this year.

 

[harirajmohan]

Not sure what to do now. Will wait and see till end of this year.

I would say if you want to still wait, you should change the address to trigger file transfer. Update the address to some other region (other than your current office region).

 

[canvisa13]

I would say if you want to still wait, you should change the address to trigger file transfer. Update the address to some other region (other than your current office region).

Sure, will think about it. Thank you.

 

[foreverwait]

No, it is not good enough, because when I called the agent 4 months back, they said it is Test Ready and it is with Scarbro office. But now they said it is in process with Sydney office (which is same as GCMS). So what to believe, that's why I am totally confused what's going on.

Any idea what is the phone number to contact an agent?

 

[harirajmohan]

Any idea what is the phone number to contact an agent?

888-242-2100
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/contact-ircc/client-support-centre.html