Any reason why CIC takes 3 months to deliver PR Card

[canvis2006]

this slow archaic department simply refuses to move onto digital processing.

Still they have those clerks manually entering data into the system (when they receive applications at CPC-Sydney)..........still no barcoded forms etc or even online. No wonder they still make errors and take forever to feed applications into the system so it takes forever even for an acknowledgment.
It's absolutely appalling that an important document such as PR Card takes like 4-6 months for renewal.

Imagine if getting/renewing a passport took that long......but IRCC has no accountability nor any process or incentive to make everything more efficient and FAST. It's slow as a turtle. Even these so-called ministers are incompetent and show no signs of improving the department.

 

[dpenabill]

This conversation is OFF-TOPIC here. Colouring way outside the lines. But the underlying issues, and misconceptions, are relevant to IRCC processing generally, thus citizenship processing as well, and are in particular relevant to misconceptions about IRCC's processes in verifying client accounting of presence or residency in Canada.

It warrants noting that the main problem with PR card renewals appears to be user-based. For some strange reasons, similar reason perhaps underlying why this conversation is taking place here, where it is OFF-TOPIC . . . so many clients fail to colour inside the lines.

I will (I expect) address some aspects particular to PRC application processing, but first will address matters common to both PRC and citizenship application processing.

Among the most common situations complicating PRC and citizenship applications is the extent to which clients make mistakes or fail to follow the instructions. This forum, including the threads in which PRC renewal is the subject for discussion, is rife with example after example of client error, from entering inaccurate dates to the omission of relevant information.

IRCC personnel do not have a crystal ball which will systematically correct all errors, inaccuracies, or omissions. While IRCC is doing a remarkable job adapting to and accommodating client error, so that the vast majority of those who make an error do not suffer dire consequences for having submitted information inconsistent with the facts or instructions, the cumulative impact of even small errors undoubtedly affects how long it takes to process applications.

Many errors are common errors and IRCC has clearly adapted to handling most of these without stumbling, with minimal slowing. Scores of citizenship applicants, for example, look at a passport stamp for when they exited their home country and report, in the presence calculator, that was the date they entered Canada. This can easily be off by a day or two. More than a few here will blame Canada because it did not make an entry stamp in the passport upon the PR's arrival in Canada. Many blame Canada even though the PR was there and had every opportunity to keep a perfectly accurate record of the date. Even though the PR himself or herself is the ONE BEST SOURCE for each and every date the PR entered or exited Canada. But in their application they get the date wrong. So IRCC compares the CBSA travel history and the client's account, and they do NOT match. For the majority of applicants this is no big deal. IRCC will sort it out. This submission of false or inaccurate information does not even result in non-routine processing.

But it is NOT as if IRCC can just shrug and assume the applicant's false information is a minor error a day or so off. The processing agent will need to make an effort and take the time to more thoroughly cross-check information, to more conscientiously examine and compare other dates in the presence calculation, to assess address and work history more closely and likewise compare that information with other information in the application and other information known to the processing agent. Some of these errors may trigger additional inquiries, such as some Internet searches for open source information.

The amount of time small errors add to processing an individual application still kept in the routine processing track (thus not put into another queue to wait for additional processing) may not be much. BUT it will certainly add up. If the average amount of additional time for handling SMALL errors is a mere 15 minutes, in say 20% of the applications made, the cumulative impact is likely in the range of at least THIRTEEN THOUSAND or so worker-hours a year (based on processing approximately 200k applications annually, which IRCC is likely to well exceed this year, and adding proportionate time to account for efficiency rates, which probably adds at least ten minutes for every fifty minutes of substantive work). THIRTEEN THOUSAND or so additional worker-hours a year. No math necessary, just some simple arithmetic. Just one tiny, incremental step in the process to accommodate client error, at just one step in the process. It adds up.

And again, that is for the smallest, and rather common sort of errors, the sort a very large percentage of us will make if we are not especially careful. Clue: Those who make applications without having kept complete records of all international travel are NOT careful at all, let alone being especially careful, AND it is clear their number is huge.

Then there are those who make more substantive, bigger errors. Many make such mistakes. Way fewer than the number who make the small errors, but nonetheless many thousands . . . we see scores and scores of them reporting in this forum alone. Photos not meeting specifications. Lack of proper proof of language ability. Dating the application a different date than the presence calculation. Failing to include a requested police certificate. Failing to disclose who assisted with the application when handwriting, signatures, envelope, or other indications suggest that it is probable someone did assist. Applicants declaring their home address to be a location which is inconsistent with other indications about where they actually live (many applicants use the address of a parent, or close family member or friend, for various reasons, but it is NOT where they actually live). Just scan topic headings here: there is no shortage of "oh-no-I-made-a-mistake" queries in this forum.

Then there are the scores of applicants whose circumstances are just complicated. Life is complicated. The lives of immigrants tend to be more complicated. Many will have significant periods of transient address or work history. Many are maintaining continued ties abroad. More than a few like me whose work has this or that strong foreign element (all my services are provided to a foreign client). And then there are those who have personal situations which can complicate things. When, for example, there is a citizenship application for a married person alone, separately, and no application for the applicant's partner, and it appears likely the reason is that one has been living abroad, that means the processing agent again must more closely examine the information to verify the applicant's account . . . recognizing that if a person's spouse is living or working abroad, that increases the probability the individual has also been living abroad, since married couples tend to live together. So a processing agent needs to do a little more work, take more time, to go through the applicants information and verify it. (Adding even a couple small errors to situations like this, which is common, can really ratchet up the effort and time necessary for IRCC to do due diligence.)

Then there is that (hopefully small but obviously more common than one would hope) category of client who fails to read and follow the instructions, many of whom will read something into the instructions which simply is NOT there. How many reports does this forum see from applicants who read item 10.b. in the application (10-2017 version), which asks "in the past (4) years, were you in another country (other than Canada) for a total of 183 or more days?" and then instructs those who check "yes" to submit a police certificate, and somehow get the idea that even if they were in another country a total of 183 days or more they should either check "no" or otherwise do not need to submit a police certificate? Recognizing that what we see in the forum tends to be only a small percentage, the tip-of-the-iceberg so to say, the forum reports suggest there are scores and scores of applicants who either check "no" or otherwise do not submit a police certificate even though the factual response to this item is YES.

This is just ONE example of how many applicants almost deliberately misread or otherwise do not follow rather simple instructions. (Late last year there were some forum participants insisting applicants could and even should ignore some time abroad, such as time before becoming a PR, and answer "NO" even though as a matter of simple fact the applicant was abroad more than 183 days in the preceding four years.)

The police certificate request is also commonly not properly addressed by an inordinate number of applicants who fail to add up dates they were in another country, somehow reading this as asking about staying in the other country for six consecutive months, even though the instructions and the examples provided clearly provide otherwise.

Whether the reason is the applicant acting as if time abroad prior to becoming a PR does not count (despite being within the preceding four years), or the reason is the applicant did not total time from trips in different years, the instructions are clear enough that these sorts of responses could reasonably be considered MISREPRESENTATION, with serious consequences. BUT IRCC is not interested in punishing PRs or citizenship applicants. IRCC is remarkably understanding and accommodating when dealing with these situations where the applicant falsely declares "no," when the factual answer is "yes." BUT AGAIN, THIS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL EFFORT AND TIME will need to be spent dealing with this single applicant. And the more applicants who make this sort of unforced error, the more it adds up.

. . . to be continued . . .

 

[dpenabill]

. . . continued from previous post . . . looking at factors tending to increase processing timelines . . . mostly we should be blaming ourselves . . .


Even those who apply with a very small margin are probably adding to the processing-time problem: since the minimum presence requirement is a NECESSARY element, if there is any POSSIBILITY the applicant fell short IRCC MUST thoroughly evaluate the applicant and the facts in order to verify the presence requirement was met. Applicants with a margin of less then ten or twenty days undoubtedly cause processing agents to spend extra time making sure there is no likelihood the applicant missed some time abroad.

Additionally, there are many, many little wrinkles in applications due to language problems. A high percentage of citizenship applicants have limited fluency in English or French. This is just inherent in the process. While skilled worker PRs who had to meet a higher competency in an official language threshold to become a PR should have minimal issues, in addition to accompanying dependents whose language ability may not be so refined there are scores and scores of family class and refugee immigrants for whom dealing in English or French is NOT at all easy. From misunderstanding application instructions to mistakes in providing information, this is simply an inherent complication in the services IRCC provides. It adds time to the process.


PR Card specific matters:

Scores and scores of PRs are applying to renew their PRC when in fact they have NOT settled in Canada, are NOT living permanently in Canada. Many have U.S. Green Cards or are otherwise maintaining residency ties abroad. Many still rely on work or businesses abroad for their primary income. If they technically meet the minimum PR Residency Obligation they are statutorily entitled to keep PR status, but of course they have not done what their grant of PR status is intended for, they have not settled and become a PERMANENT resident-in-fact. So of course applications for a new PRC from such PRs MUST be scrutinized more thoroughly, more carefully, a lot more so, which in turn not only takes longer but it also diverts agency resources.

As reports in this forum illustrate, many, many PRs are applying for a new PRC even though they have actually been living outside Canada more than in Canada during the preceding five years. Again, yes, if they technically meet the minimum PR Residency Obligation they are statutorily entitled to keep PR status, but of course these applicants MUST be scrutinized far more extensively. IRCC has a MANDATE to apply and ENFORCE Canada's immigration laws, and thus MUST enforce the PR RO.

For PRs who have settled and are living permanently in Canada, and who have or soon will apply for citizenship, but whose PRC is expiring before it is likely they will become a citizen, it is kind of like getting in a checkout line at the grocery store and someone in front has all sorts of issues, needs multiple price checks, or challenges the scanner price, or whose debit card is not working. No matter how simple it will be to check out for the clearly well-qualified, they are waiting in a line which includes more problematic cases in front of them.

And of course IRCC is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies do not adapt well to changing conditions. Bureaucracies do not adapt well to handling sticky, non-routine cases, let alone outright problematic cases. Bureaucracies do not easily accommodate swings in workload. The bigger the bureaucracy, the less nimble it is in adapting. IRCC is one of Canada's biggest bureaucracies. Its workload is probably the most complicated (albeit perhaps with the exception of CRA). Its clientele certainly have the broadest and most diverse range of individual factors. So yes, IRCC will tend to struggle with its workload. And can vary widely from time to time, as historical trends in PRC processing all too amply illustrate (PRC processing times have ranged from just five or six weeks to around five or six months, with some rather wild shifts in-between).

OVERALL: For anyone looking for reasons why IRCC takes as long as it does, the answer to that query is mostly found in how much additional work other applicants impose on the system. We do not make it easy. (I admit, my case was a little complicated, I was self-employed selling all my services abroad, so I waited almost two extra years to apply, but I too probably caused a processing agent to spend more time on my application than needed for a perfect applicant. It is the nature of the beast.)

Most of us agree with IRCC leaning toward tolerance and understanding when we make mistakes, when our situations are complicated, when there are issues in our cases. BUT that tolerance and understanding comes at a cost, including the additional amount of time necessary to provide such accommodation.



BORDER CONTROL RECORDS; a RED-HERRING:

Among the most persistent complaints about Canadian immigration-related issues is the call for Canada to play parent for each and every person who leaves or enters Canada, to capture and maintain an exact record for each individual's exit or entry.

There are practical reasons why this is a non-starter, a total red-herring. Canada has a hugely porous border and it is very, very easy for travelers to leave or enter without the government capturing the event, at all or in connection with a particular client number.

Canada also has a pervasive, compelling incentive (easily measured in dollars, from cost dollars, to Americans spending in Canada dollars) to minimize border control processing with the U.S. in particular, which leaves the door wide, wide open for ways in which to skirt or manipulate border control.

So a policy to capture and exclusively rely on border control records is simply NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, not anytime soon. Not going to happen. Not worth wasting a keystroke over.

That said, Canada is partnering with the U.S. and otherwise independently expanding and enhancing the extent to which it is capturing border crossing information. So yes, more and more so IRCC can access information about individual clients exiting and entering Canada. CBSA travel history now tends to be NEARLY complete for the vast majority of PRs. It tends to be highly accurate.

Exit information is not yet so complete. But the trend is headed that way.

IT IS NONETHELESS HIGHLY UNLIKELY CBSA OR IRCC WILL CHANGE THEIR APPROACH TO ASSESSING CLIENT PRESENCE ACCOUNTING.

The burden of REPORTING travel dates and burden of PROVING presence will remain on the client, the PR.

As I have oft observed, the PR is the ONE BEST SOURCE of this information, the one best source in the whole world. The PR is the one and only person who was FOR SURE there, each and every time, the one and only person who FOR SURE has a full opportunity to make a complete and accurate record of each and every time the individual left or entered Canada.

Canada is not likely to start playing daddy.

Moreover, in contrast, contrary to popular opinion, proof of dates of entry and dates of exit does NOT prove presence in Canada on other days. The more thoroughly the government has its own complete record of dates of exit and dates of entry, for a given individual, the more the government can rely on the INFERENCE a PR was present in Canada between a date of entry and the next date of exit. BUT that is still an INFERENCE. That still depends on whether in fact the individual really did remain in Canada, was present in Canada, all those days between a known date of entry and the next REPORTED date of exit.

So Canada will use its more comprehensive records to verify the PR's accounting. BUT it will still be the PR's burden to provide an accurate and complete accounting of travel dates, and those who fail to do so, do so at their peril.

Processing PRC and citizenship applications, and more so citizenship applications, DEPENDS on IRCC verifying the PR was actually, physically present all those days in-between a known date of entry and the next REPORTED date of exit. Work history information, for example, is almost exclusively required and reviewed for this purpose, because it helps IRCC verify the applicant's actual presence in Canada. Yes, this too adds processing time. It is how it works now and how it is likely to continue working for the foreseeable future.