Congrats!
I know you are a bit behind the Aug 2023 crowd!
However, I hope they get your Prob and Oath date very soon.
Please keep us updated.
2023 Citizenship Applications
- Thread starter GFLiam
- Start date
I know you are a bit behind the Aug 2023 crowd!
However, I hope they get your Prob and Oath date very soon.
Please keep us updated.
To be clear, I spend so much time addressing actual cases, citing actual facts, referencing and applying actual law, because some, including you, repeat falsehoods about the process, whereas for many it is important to deal with reality, particularly for those who come to this forum for information they hope will help them navigate their way through the process when their application, their case, gets involved with serious issues, like when they figure out they are the subject of comprehensive security screening that goes unresolved long enough to signal a real problem could be lurking.
It is clear you are referencing my posts and misrepresenting what is in them: lots of actual facts, and lots of citations and links to official sources, authoritative sources, and reliable sources.
For those (more than a few here) in the TLTR crowd (that is the I don't want to bother learning how things really work crowd), here's a summary:
The claim by @GFLiam that there is "absolutely no transparency" in regards to "what IRCC or CSIS does when they receive an application" is blatantly false, and a distraction. Even though I cited and linked a massive amount of real information from official, authoritative, and reliable sources, all of that merely scratches the surface demonstrating how grossly false that claim is.
While this is important because there are remedies available for those who are unfairly bogged down by an unwarranted hold or suspension of processing, which those who are affected should be aware of so they can make informed decisions about waiting or seeking the assistance of legal counsel, it is more important for those who have ascertained their citizenship application is bogged down due to a comprehensive security screening (be that by CSIS or CBSA's NSSD) to be aware that more than just their citizenship application may be at stake. Make no mistake, these investigatory referrals are serious and for many they implicate potential inadmissibility issues. No one in this forum (at least not in this setting) can reliably assess what is at stake for any particular applicant who is the subject of a security investigation. It is important to recognize when it is a good idea to lawyer-up.
Playing the victim is merely clickbait. A distraction.
Read my signature, I am not going to post all my personal info and all the ATIP stuff on here, but all of that in my sig is true. None of that is "falsehood". I am not playing victim, I AM a victim of the incompetency of the system and the people managing the system. And why would anyone create "clickbaits" on the canadavisa forum? What does one have to gain by doing so? This is not youtube or other social media where one can monetize it. It literally doesn't help anyone even if 10 million people (or AI or whatever) click on a topic.
And about the lawyer stuff...I am tired of talking about it so I am not going to.
That's all I am going to say on this. We can agree to disagree on the lack of transparency in MY PERSPECTIVE and it may be crystal clear transparency to you, and I congratulate you because what a lot of us are experiencing clearly doesn't affect you and you are the lucky one.
Last edited:
Every individual is aware of their BG and
Those stuck in BG/Security clearance for 2+ years know their background, where they come from & if there is a legitimate reason for the process to take 2+ years. Even with cause, security clearance/BG checks shouldn’t take this long. Its 2026 ffs & the world/systems are connected.
No lengthy articles / citng would change my opinion. We have many of the FC rulings confirming administrative issues resulting in delays. Comes down to inefficiency - that’s it
second that. Gross incompetence and lack of accountability of the institution & the people within the institution.
Those stuck in BG/Security clearance for 2+ years know their background, where they come from & if there is a legitimate reason for the process to take 2+ years. Even with cause, security clearance/BG checks shouldn’t take this long. Its 2026 ffs & the world/systems are connected.
No lengthy articles / citng would change my opinion. We have many of the FC rulings confirming administrative issues resulting in delays. Comes down to inefficiency - that’s it
Finally my background got completed after 2 years, prohibitions remains. Aor August 2023
For those 2023 applicants not seeing any progress in the processing of their citizenship application, apprehending they are the subject of a security related investigatory referral (whether to CSIS or NSSD), but who are certain there is no cause, no real security issue, no basis for a comprehensive investigation, based on understanding how things actually work, odds are good there is nothing much to worry about . . . but it could take some time for IRCC, and CSIS or NSSD, to sort things out, so it is mostly a matter of waiting, or deciding if and when it is worth getting a lawyer involved to pursue recourse.
However, for most citizenship applicants who are the subject of a security related investigatory referral, and especially if it is clear there is a hold on processing the citizenship application for that reason, be aware these can be serious, typically are serious, and that claims of incompetence, lack of accountability, or otherwise arbitrary or frivolous decision-making, are grossly exaggerated. If in doubt see a lawyer.
There is no doubt that many citizenship applicants suffer from inordinate, excessive delays in processing related to investigatory referrals to NSSD or CSIS. Even though there are many affected, it is only a tiny percentage of applicants. That does not mitigate the injustice of unfairly delayed processing.
What to do about this largely goes in two directions:
My efforts here are generally focused on providing information that will help those pursuing recourse in their individual case (at least those who are interested), help them better understand the process, how things work, and what is at stake for them, hoping that information helps them make decisions, helps them navigate their way forward. So my focus is sorting out (as best we can) how-things-actually-work. (And contrary to false advertising otherwise, the process is highly transparent so we can and do know a lot about how things actually work.) So most of my observations (which I try hard to be informational, not opinion) are geared to the first of these directions, information that can be used to make decisions in pursuing recourse.
I do not, however, try to offer advice about what to do (other than situations in which the obvious thing to do is see a lawyer), but rather am focused on information that I hope will help others figure out for themselves how to navigate their way forward. In regards to applicants who are the subject of comprehensive security screening that goes unresolved for an especially long period of time, it is important to be aware that could signal a real problem . . . so in regards to this tangent about long-delayed, stuck-in-security-screening cases, it is important for applicants to be aware:
I appreciate that you and others, apparently @GFLiam for example, are confident that there is nothing to worry about in your particular cases, no security issues at stake. I make no effort to second-guess your or any other applicant's self-assessment. I will say, and say it with emphasis, if you are the subject of a referral for comprehensive security screening and like @GFLiam you are confident there is no cause for that, neither your case nor @GFLiam's case are at all the norm. It would be a mistake for others to think that just because some forum participants (like you and @GFLiam) are unfairly stuck in an investigatory referral for no cause that is their situation as well. The odds are high otherwise. Others should recognize their case is not likely the same as yours, and that gambling the referral is due to incompetence, or is otherwise without cause, would be a long shot bet.
Meanwhile, there is a tendency in this forum to conflate how-things-should-work with how-things-actually-work, which is typical in an open forum like this. Many of us focused on how-things-actually-work make an effort to steer clear of opinions about how-things-should-work, not because we do not have an opinion but to minimize confusion and distraction.
You say that is all you are going to say on this, supposedly giving me the opportunity to get the last word, but that seems unlikely to happen, unlikely that you will drop talking about security referrals and what that means for those affected, or desist from making false claims about there being absolutely no transparency in the processing of citizenship applications. So you can save the phony, passive-aggressive congratulations and other snide remarks. (And to be clear, about how lucky or unlucky I might be, as if luck has that much to do with citizenship application processing, since just yesterday I was visiting the grave site for our granddaughter who we lost suddenly earlier this year, I am reminded what it is to be unlucky, like she was, and that sometimes being lucky, like lucky to be the one still living, is too often not so lucky. Real life tends to be messy.)
I have not been commenting at all on your case. I am not qualified to offer an opinion about your case. I am nowhere near sufficiently informed to assess your case. You have claimed you have been given competent legal advice from a qualified and informed lawyer, so you have far more information about your personal case than I could possibly know. You command me to read you signature, but my observations are not about your situation.
I am not here to persuade. Whether you agree with me, or disagree, or agree to disagree (agreeing with yourself it appears), is not relevant. You started this topic and are largely responsible for taking it into a discussion about the impact of long delays due to referrals for security related investigation. Even though it is likely that AI tools (employed in administrative decisions involving risk assessment, lowering the threshold for what triggers such referrals) are behind an increase in such referrals that may be unnecessary or even some that are entirely unwarranted (like yours you say), for those affected it is important to recognize that the process is not arbitrary, not capricious, and despite the flaws and harm that causes, it is largely transparent and not mired in incompetence. For many there will be decisions they need to make about how to navigate going forward. My observations are for them.
However, for most citizenship applicants who are the subject of a security related investigatory referral, and especially if it is clear there is a hold on processing the citizenship application for that reason, be aware these can be serious, typically are serious, and that claims of incompetence, lack of accountability, or otherwise arbitrary or frivolous decision-making, are grossly exaggerated. If in doubt see a lawyer.
There is no doubt that many citizenship applicants suffer from inordinate, excessive delays in processing related to investigatory referrals to NSSD or CSIS. Even though there are many affected, it is only a tiny percentage of applicants. That does not mitigate the injustice of unfairly delayed processing.
What to do about this largely goes in two directions:
-- pursuing recourse, resolution in the individual case, and
-- advocacy for changes to improve how the process works
My efforts here are generally focused on providing information that will help those pursuing recourse in their individual case (at least those who are interested), help them better understand the process, how things work, and what is at stake for them, hoping that information helps them make decisions, helps them navigate their way forward. So my focus is sorting out (as best we can) how-things-actually-work. (And contrary to false advertising otherwise, the process is highly transparent so we can and do know a lot about how things actually work.) So most of my observations (which I try hard to be informational, not opinion) are geared to the first of these directions, information that can be used to make decisions in pursuing recourse.
I do not, however, try to offer advice about what to do (other than situations in which the obvious thing to do is see a lawyer), but rather am focused on information that I hope will help others figure out for themselves how to navigate their way forward. In regards to applicants who are the subject of comprehensive security screening that goes unresolved for an especially long period of time, it is important to be aware that could signal a real problem . . . so in regards to this tangent about long-delayed, stuck-in-security-screening cases, it is important for applicants to be aware:
-- first, for those qualified there is recourse in the law (yes, it is expensive and yes that itself can take a very long time, but that's how things actually work), and
-- secondly, an overriding concern, that investigatory referrals for security related issues are typically serious, so those who apprehend they are in fact the subject of such a referral would be prudent to seriously evaluate their situation and figure out if and when it is time to lawyer-up . . . not to pursue mandamus but to defend against inadmissibility allegations if it come to that
I appreciate that you and others, apparently @GFLiam for example, are confident that there is nothing to worry about in your particular cases, no security issues at stake. I make no effort to second-guess your or any other applicant's self-assessment. I will say, and say it with emphasis, if you are the subject of a referral for comprehensive security screening and like @GFLiam you are confident there is no cause for that, neither your case nor @GFLiam's case are at all the norm. It would be a mistake for others to think that just because some forum participants (like you and @GFLiam) are unfairly stuck in an investigatory referral for no cause that is their situation as well. The odds are high otherwise. Others should recognize their case is not likely the same as yours, and that gambling the referral is due to incompetence, or is otherwise without cause, would be a long shot bet.
Meanwhile, there is a tendency in this forum to conflate how-things-should-work with how-things-actually-work, which is typical in an open forum like this. Many of us focused on how-things-actually-work make an effort to steer clear of opinions about how-things-should-work, not because we do not have an opinion but to minimize confusion and distraction.
You say that is all you are going to say on this, supposedly giving me the opportunity to get the last word, but that seems unlikely to happen, unlikely that you will drop talking about security referrals and what that means for those affected, or desist from making false claims about there being absolutely no transparency in the processing of citizenship applications. So you can save the phony, passive-aggressive congratulations and other snide remarks. (And to be clear, about how lucky or unlucky I might be, as if luck has that much to do with citizenship application processing, since just yesterday I was visiting the grave site for our granddaughter who we lost suddenly earlier this year, I am reminded what it is to be unlucky, like she was, and that sometimes being lucky, like lucky to be the one still living, is too often not so lucky. Real life tends to be messy.)
I have not been commenting at all on your case. I am not qualified to offer an opinion about your case. I am nowhere near sufficiently informed to assess your case. You have claimed you have been given competent legal advice from a qualified and informed lawyer, so you have far more information about your personal case than I could possibly know. You command me to read you signature, but my observations are not about your situation.
I am not here to persuade. Whether you agree with me, or disagree, or agree to disagree (agreeing with yourself it appears), is not relevant. You started this topic and are largely responsible for taking it into a discussion about the impact of long delays due to referrals for security related investigation. Even though it is likely that AI tools (employed in administrative decisions involving risk assessment, lowering the threshold for what triggers such referrals) are behind an increase in such referrals that may be unnecessary or even some that are entirely unwarranted (like yours you say), for those affected it is important to recognize that the process is not arbitrary, not capricious, and despite the flaws and harm that causes, it is largely transparent and not mired in incompetence. For many there will be decisions they need to make about how to navigate going forward. My observations are for them.
Right, let's get back to people sharing their actual application status here in this 2023 citizenship application thread. There are some really strange activities in my recent ATIPs and I'd rather not share and trigger another essay because it seems like I am in the extreme rare end of the spectrum. I will share any updates on any actual movements in my case when that happens.
For the rest of the extremely rare 2023 applicants who are still stuck in purgatory, please feel free to speak up. There shouldn't be anyone judging you.
For the rest of the extremely rare 2023 applicants who are still stuck in purgatory, please feel free to speak up. There shouldn't be anyone judging you.
Last edited:
Update today. Ceremony invite email received.
He's suffering here and you're writing giant essays. He is an actual victim of IRCC's policies and lack of communication.
Is it possible for you to tell us without disclosing too many details? Who cares what others think. Let them write long essays.