Search results

Welcome. Just ask to be added the worksheet this forum maintains if you already have not done that. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UVvKb4Sem00uOCyB2kTeM2_AofgT_8b4uTJyBh9pXdg/edit#gid=1316748968 Just go to the forum, and the month you sent your documents and ask to be added. Give your...

Well, my thoughts are if the status does not change within 60 days from your time sending the package then give them a call. Running through the excel datasheets, these numbers are averages. I have seen people getting AOR after 50 and 60 days. Also note that some urgent processing cases do lower...

It is actually the other way around. In 2017, it was taking 40 to 50 days. In 2018, for around 90% of people, the average was 35 days for January applicants and 27 for February.

It seems that the time for moving from AOR to IP status has increased for January and February Applicants. Like for the past year, it would take below 30 days for the transition. But for January 2018, with 50% response, the average is 33, and for February 2018, the first non-urgent case reported...

Hi, UPDATE for knightofOrthodoxy: AOR on March 14th, 2018 kindly update sheet

Hi, Could you add me please to the 2018 sheet: Application sent on Feb 16th Application received on Feb 19th. Physical Days: 1108 Status: Single City: Montreal

Application sent on Feb 16th Application received on Feb 19th. Physical Days: 1108 Status: Single City: Montreal

Hi, I sent my citizenship application by Xpresspost to the courier address ((Sydney. NS) with signature required. However, on Canada post website, I received "A signature has been captured for this item, however, the signatory has requested that the signature not be displayed on this website...

Hi Guys, Please add my name to the Feb sheet: Application sent on Feb 16th Application received on Feb 19th. Physical Days: 1108 Status: Single City: Montreal Btw, I sent it by Xpresspost to the courier address with signature required. However, on Canada post website, I received "A signature...

Despite her tweets and that it is logical to expect to throw away the 3/5 rule and retain the 4/6. however, the evidence is that the proposed residency ammendments are to only retain the 183 days per year residency. Check the link...

Indeed, you are both right. I made a mistake in interpreting the ammendment. And I just listened to the recording of the senate again and the senator does indeed say it is about maintaining the 183 residency requirments. However, It could indirectly mean that many immigrants have to wait and...

Hi, I believe you are mistaken on point (b) which says: by deleting clause 8, on page 4 This concerns clause 8, page 4 of C-6 not the Citizenship Act. If you look closely at that clause, it is the one that replaces the 4/6 rule by 3/5 rule. By deleting that clause, this effectively means...

The ammendments target two things only: 1. First Ammendment: (a)in clause 1, on page 1, by deleting lines 17 and 18; This basically deletes C-6 text which says "(3) Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is repealed" which in the Citizenship act translates to: (ii) been physically present in...

It says it passed, I know. I want to see the YaYs and Nays division

Does anybody know the exact vote on C-4 today? if any, to see an indication of how many independents sides with the cons on this bill? It is not related as each bill is different, but it is worth examining.

Any one with a Canadian Law degree can speak on the inadmissability of the residency ammendment? I found the very same rules that were put forward today to be ground for inadmissability. No Personal opinions pleasem only legal Admissibility rules To be admissible, amendments should conform to...

Despite the frustration. I would rather have a complete bill covering many of the shortcomings of all previous citizenship bills. A bill that is fair and working. Otherwise, if loopholes are still there, future goverments either Liberal. Conservative or NDP might introduce newer bills to address...

Oops my bad. But still where are the remaining senators?

So in Legsinfo website, is says the Chamber sitting today is 110 But counting the total votes, it seems the numbers don't add up. (35 + 27 + 3 = 65). Where are the other senators? Committess? Are all the 35 For votes coming from the conservative bloc or are other independents voted alongside...

Wait, did I miss something? Is this 3.5/5.5 amendment for real or is it someone here being sarcastic?