Thanks for chipping in. I didn't know how to apply that to my case. I dont think my application was sent late to Ottawa office from CPC. My background check got cleared back in Aug 2021 and I've been struck without progress since, while those that applied in June and July of 2021 ( I've resent my app. in April 2021) are getting test invites. I've now made webform requests to keep my paper application (for which my BG got cleared) to be placed on hold and requested to process my online application (sent April2021,AOR: Aug 2021) first. Do you think , this will be categorized as non-routine ?
First, the "non-routine" categorization: A "
non-routine" c
ategorization has ZERO significance in how an application is processed. It is merely a label identifying an application that has been involved in a procedure apart from, in addition to, the procedures all applications go through. Not all applicants get a finger print request, so a finger print request means that application can be labelled "
non-routine." But so what? What matters is why there was a finger print request, how soon the applicant provides the finger prints, and thus how that specific procedure affects that particular application.
Not all finger print requests are created equal. Let alone other "
non-routine" procedures.
Some "
non-routine" procedures have very little impact on how the application is processed, how long it will take. Other "
non-routine" procedures can have a big impact on how the application is processed and how long it takes. It has nothing to do with the label "
non-routine," but is about what particular procedure is involved.
So, frankly,
duh, if you have two citizenship applications, look around:
that is NOT routine. So yeah, of course you have proceeded in a way that makes your application(s) "
non-routine." But again, that label means almost nothing. What matters is how this particular situation affects the processing of your application.
Which, again,
@rajkamalmohanram has addressed and provided very good information about, both recently and previously. You elected to in effect go a different way. That is a personal judgment call, your decision.
I do not know how this affects the processing of applications generally, let alone how it will specifically affect yours. Here too it appears that
@rajkamalmohanram has looked at this more extensively and offered about as much information about it as anyone can.
But I do understand a little about how bureaucracies work. And, more to the point, where they tend to not work so well. Which should be obvious, since this forum is rife with anecdotal reports about how much slower it tends to go when an application gets sidetracked or involved with complicating procedures.
I have also been following the progress of enough applications to see more than a few examples of applicants pushing this, pressing that, trying this or that, and eventually they reach the finish line . . . except so far as I can see, in comparison to other applicants in similar scenarios, it often looks like they reach the finish line about the same time they would have without pushing this, pressing that, trying this or that. One has to smile when this or that applicant boastfully reports they had a lawyer make a demand as a prerequisite to mandamus and they fairly soon were scheduled for the oath (or the next step in their particular case), which quite often tends to correspond to about the time they probably would have been scheduled for the oath (or the next step in their particular case) anyway.
It kind of baffles me how much the fact that IRCC is a BUREAUCRACY seems to be overlooked or dismissed in this forum. Think of a machine that does multiple functions sequentially. If something jams, that slows it down. Best recourse is for the machine operators to fix the jam and get things moving again. Any other stopping the machine to tinker with things in regards to a particular item going through the process is not going to accelerate how soon that item gets through the process, but it does risk slowing down how long it will take. Now, yes, of course, a bureaucracy like IRCC is not that rigidly a machine, but that's the general gist of how bureaucracies work.
Then consider an item being processed by that machine, but that item has something about it different from the mainstream of items being processed. It gets taken out of the sequence, gets special handling, or one might say "
non-routine" processing, and at best whatever that special handling requires will delay the item going back into the machine to complete its processing. The mechanics of the process are not that mysterious.
Comparing Timelines:
Comparing the progress of a particular application to the progress of other particular applications only offers a glimpse of the timeline for SOME applications. How it will go for this or that particular application depends on multiple factors, including how things are going in the particular office where the file is being handled, but also including a range of factors specific to the individual. As I noted, efforts to finesse things to accelerate the timeline are largely futile. That means they generally have little or no positive effect. They can, however, complicate things and have a negative effect. There are exceptions of course, some cases need a bit of tinkering, but generally if for this or that reason an individual's application gets bogged down more than others in the same office, there is little or nothing the applicant can do to accelerate its processing . . . except, of course, the obvious: be sure to promptly respond to any requests and otherwise appear for scheduled events (in person or online, as scheduled).
And, it warrants cautioning, generally better to avoid complicating things, which tends to risk slowing things down significantly more than it is likely to help.
Finally, generally if something has slowed down processing for a particular applicant, whatever that is will need to be resolved. A new application will not make whatever that is disappear.
ALL THAT SAID: I understand the primary thinking and motivation behind the decision to make a second application, thinking that will in effect leap frog bogged down applications currently stalled. Maybe.
I doubt it but I do not really know. Again,
@rajkamalmohanram appears to have a better grasp on this, and has offered some suggestions which you do not appear inclined to follow. Your decision. And of course you can always come back and report how it goes for you.
