Search results

Canadiandesi2006 , Unfortunately I also think that your application is facing delays due to the fact that it's your second application.

I hope you make a difference between Royal Assent and Effective Date. I also expect Royal Assent this June, but the 4/6 rule will be still effective long after the Royal Assent. In the case of the current Bill C-24 the effective date for the current 4/6 rule came 11.5 months AFTER the Royal...

Yes there is a very good chances the 3/5 rule to be effective in December next year so this is when you will be eligible to apply.

You should include only the Bio pages of the both passports. Nothing extra. Otherwise the IRCC employee is getting confused and such aftermath errors from them are common.

How many biographical pages the old passport has? Do you mean that you printed every single page of the old passport?

The real problem is that CIC doesn't have any mandatory deadlines to follow. It was clear that this March 31 "deadline" was just part of the pre-election promises by the Conservatives.

Not so long ago it was mentioned somewhere in the media that most of the backlog is expected to be cleared by the end of this year. Which is good because is just another year extra from now procrastination. Most probably after that there will be another procrastination for couple of months or...

The senate is the only place where some turbulence might occur if JT doesn't populate it with Liberals before that.

Unfortunately it's very unlikely to become fully effective this year.

It is also amusing how CIC/IRCC has a well established habit, to never keep their promises. I was sure long time ago that this "deadline" will be extended again for someday in the unknown future. Why do they give these timelines when there are officially no deadlines. CIC/IRCC is doing whatever...

According to the "promise" all routine applications made before April last year should be ready. Today was the "deadline". Oh sorry I forgot. There is no mandatory deadlines for CIC/IRCC.

Welcome to the team anon3721. The budget is decreasing and the employees decreasing . That means only one thing = BIG BACKLOG WITH BIG PROCESSING DELAYS. The same set up back in the days which was set up by the Conservatives. Now we see a complete repetition. But the people are sooooo happy...

In the current rules, NO

Yes I agree that all that was a nasty political game to intentionally break down the whole system and to magically fix it with the new rules right before the elections. The fixing was intentionally procrastinated to use it like a fresh benefit for the election campaign.

Only the last 5 years backwards from the date of the application will count toward the 1095 days. The days as a PR from 8 years ago WILL NOT be counted.

My point is that even assuming the notes are right this time, there is still nothing the applicant can do. All the control is in the agent hands. If that application was under the new rules the chances are that IRCC would have contacted the OP already, letting him know what the problem is...

If the OP got this information only from ATIP on his file that he is short, there is a chance that this note have been placed there by mistake and actually everything with his application might be OK. I am saying that based on multiple recent reports from people who reported blatant...

This is why we still see the negative remedies from the old rules even today, keeping in mind that the old rules are not effective for already a substantial amount of time. Some people are actually still understanding that their waiting has just started. Waiting for the UNKNOWN. Crazy old rules...

But at least it will fight against the fraud much more effectively when we have the strict physical presence requirement with all the internal business branches at IRCC disposal. I don't like the Conservatives but I give them big credit for building the current structure in IRCC decision making...

I definitely prefer the new rules with strict eligibility criteria like it is now. Even with 1 day short the application should be treated as UNeligible under the 4/6 rule. Which it seems is the way IRCC applies the rule and I fully support that.