+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445
I’m interested of this question and would like to share my experience hopefully getting answers. My SS started on September 08/2023, so almost 2 years. And off course stuck in BG and prohibition. Can we say I will see any movement soon?
AOR July 2023
I have saw a case, his SS start date is 5 SEP 2023 and his background got cleared on AUg 6 2025. Experts are saying that if your app status is open in your GCMS notes then your file should conclude with 24 months of SS start date.

SO WE ALL should track this CSIS security start date
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAG2000 and ZiadPal
Can we find the background start date check on GCMS notes? I see nothing on mine about background check. That section is empty. I just see that Criminality is passed. From background start date it usually takes 24 months?
Also has there been any movements for June/July AOR candidates?
 
I have saw a case, his SS start date is 5 SEP 2023 and his background got cleared on AUg 6 2025. Experts are saying that if your app status is open in your GCMS notes then your file should conclude with 24 months of SS start date.

SO WE ALL should track this CSIS security start date
well surprise surprise, my CSIS cleared a long time ago, but I am still in this limbo
 
Your post is not true. @Ali.arshady is correct.

For clarity:
(In case there is any real interest in understanding how things work in a way that might actually help navigating the process, rather than spouting erroneous rhetoric.)

There is NO right to citizenship as such in the Canadian Charter of Rights, which defines the rights of people in Canada, some rights that everyone has, some that Canadians in particular have (such as the respective mobility rights of permanent residents and citizens), and some which only Canadian citizens have (such as the democratic rights of citizens).

Many other so-called "rights" are statutorily prescribed, and as such are subject to revision or even elimination by Parliament. These are legally known as "privileges" (even if labels refer to them as a right), distinguishing them from Charter rights.

Even those rights guaranteed by the Charter are subject to limits imposed by law, limits which however must be reasonable and demonstrably justified (noting, for example, when it is justified Canadian citizens can be forcibly confined to small spaces with bars on the windows, if there are even windows).

In contrast, statutory rights, that is those "privileges" prescribed by law, can be subject to almost any limitations imposed by Parliament, or just plain eliminated by Parliament. One might note that who is statutorily entitled to citizenship (which is prescribed by Section 3 in the Citizenship Act, defining who is and who can become a citizen), has been revised many times in the last half century, in some cases including making changes that take away the statutory right of citizenship from certain groups of people.

And the comment by @Ali.arshady is well-taken; it is prudent to temper expectations based on . . . well, how things actually work, recognizing in particular that the process for obtaining naturalized citizenship is subject to some hurdles and can take time, and for some that can involve bigger hurdles and longer processing times.

By the way, labels, like the label "right of citizenship fee," and even those labels or titles in statutory provisions (like the subject title of Section 3 in the Citizenship Act, titled "The Right to Citizenship") rarely have much more than very little if any substantive import. The fact the word "right" is used in the subject title for section 3 in the Citizenship Act does not elevate citizenship above being a statutorily prescribed privilege. See sidebar below.

Note for others and in general; the "right" to privileges: The fact that someone is entitled to a privilege, which tends to be understood as merely a privilege, is no trivial thing. Even though, as the comment by @Ali.arshady reminds us, the fact that the grant of citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and given that some of the more hyperbolic expectations (some outright demands) are not reality based, the statutory provisions governing the grant of citizenship to Permanent Residents are the law and the Canadian government is bound by this law, and it must grant citizenship to those who qualify and properly follow the procedure for obtaining the grant of citizenship as prescribed in the law. So, for example, there are situations in which it is indeed appropriate to seek judicial intervention and an order (a Writ of Mandamus) compelling the government to finalize an application for citizenship. That is, even though the grant of citizenship is a privilege, the Charter right to the equal benefit of the law applies and the process must comply with principles of procedural fairness.

Meanwhile not all statutory privileges are created equal. Citizenship is unquestionably at the upper end of the spectrum.


Sidebar regarding "right to citizenship fee":

There was an attempt to have the "right to citizenship fee" (referred to by both the Federal Court and subsequently the Federal Court of Appeal, as what the "parties describe" as the "Right to be a Citizen Fee") declared unconstitutional. This was rejected by the Federal Court in Brink v. Canada, 2022 FC 1231, https://canlii.ca/t/jrp5l and the appeal of that was dismissed in Brink v. Canada, 2024 FCA 43, https://canlii.ca/t/k3cgk . . . in the latter there is a discussion about the well-known Ontario case, Bjorkquist et al. v Attorney General of Canada, 23 ONSC 7152, and the Crown's submission that Bjorkquist was "both distinguishable and incorrect," and the judge writing the FCA decision stated: "I agree."

As has been discussed here in this forum at some length, since there was no appeal of the Bjorkquist decision, the government has been under pressure to revise the Citizenship Act in regards to citizenship by descent for those born outside Canada, to avoid a ruling that the current law that does not confer citizenship on those in the second-generation born abroad is unconstitutional. It is not clear that the judge, Anne L. Mactavish, is explicitly stating that the Bjorkquist decision is wrong, and would be rejected if appealed, but she does go into some depth explaining how the Bjorkquist decision misinterpreted or misapplied the particular case it relies on in reaching its conclusion about the law excluding the second-generation born abroad from citizenship.

One of the other two judges concurring in this FCA decision is Donald Rennie, the judge who has, in another case, explicitly ruled that citizenship is not a right but rather a privilege.
Well explained!
I appreciate the thorough explanation, and I hope everyone can move through this process smoothly and on time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stuckinsec
Can we find the background start date check on GCMS notes? I see nothing on mine about background check. That section is empty. I just see that Criminality is passed. From background start date it usually takes 24 months?
Also has there been any movements for June/July AOR candidates?
Get CBSA notes; they have a security start date
 
  • Like
Reactions: vahiz

Even though there are no apparent significantly off statements in the CityNews article titled "Immigration lawyers say rising number of CSIS security screenings causing delays," there is little useful information in the article; it illuminates rather little beyond the headline, and for those who follow these matters, that merely affirms what has been largely obvious for a long time, the main change is that more recently this appears to be affecting a larger number of applicants. Not only is important context absent, the article conflates and confuses more than it informs.

The reference to the number of "screening requests," for example, appears to include routine referrals for background clearances, the vast majority of which are more or less perfunctory, largely automated relying on information in databases, and in citizenship application processing not what is causing delays, not for the vast majority of applicants. The delays are generally in cases where there is an investigatory referral, or where something flags the applicant in the routine clearance procedure.

Consider the Ali Abuhannoud's situation, for example, in which he recognizes his case is different than most, recognizing that the security background clearance (which is done for all adult citizenship applicants) is not causing any delay for most others, and so he feels he in particular is "being punished" based on factors he did not choose, like where he comes from.


So CSIS thinks looking at people's social media is a good investigation method...interesting...

Despite many explicit references in published decisions, and my many references (going back many years) in this forum, to IRCC accessing what it calls "open sources," which includes social media and LinkedIn in particular (LinkedIn being one of the mostly commonly referenced open sources cited in numerous published decisions), perhaps some have not been aware that this has been common in non-routine inquiries and investigations for a long time.

But it is hard to fathom anyone being surprised that law enforcement and security intelligence services, like CBSA, RCMP, and CSIS, regularly utilize open sources including social media when conducting background screening let alone investigations.

So, for those who may have been hanging out under a rock, yeah, they can and they often do check open sources, including social media, even just in regards to screening to verify things like employment and address history, let alone attendant investigations in processing applicants in what are considered complex and highly complex cases. For citizenship applicants and enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation, it appears that IRCC (and CBSA on referral) often access open sources to crosscheck information related to physical presence.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, in this regard it warrants being aware that such checks screen information for name variants.

Please excuse being a bit fuzzy with details, since I am relying on my recall, but among cases I have previously discussed here in the forum was one where CIC (before the name change to IRCC) contested a citizenship applicant's physical presence based on finding information about a conference in Europe at which the applicant was a speaker, which was during a time period the applicant reported being in Canada. Another was a case where the applicant listed U.S. employment experience in LinkedIn for a period he listed his employment, in the application, as being in Canada. In another case I have discussed here in the past, but in the PR part of the forum, another LinkedIn scenario, there was an allegation of misrepresentation based on extensive discrepancies between information (both in work and address history) provided by the client and what IRCC found in a LinkedIn account under a similar but not the same name, even though the client denied it was her LinkedIn account.

In any event, we get a lot of news here from the U.S. (too ugly too often but that's another subject) and in the news about almost every major crime there (there are so many) the FBI and other law enforcement seem to almost immediately conduct an internet search of the suspects' social media. Maybe that's not the very first focus of their investigation, but high on the list. No one should be surprised in the least that Canadian law enforcement also utilize open sources including social media. So they don't go around your neighbourhood and talk to neighbours as much as they did in the past (when things got into the investigatory phase, which does not happen for most, just some).
 
check out this thread if any of it applies to you