Based on the 2018 spreadsheet, there is a considerable hike in the time between AoR and IP for Feb applicants onward compared to the previous months. I was wondering if the background check is triggered right after AoR by Sydney office or it only starts after application is transferred to the local office and the app status changes to IP? Any clues?
Background Check starts after AoR or IP?
- Thread starter 3bdcanada
- Start date
I have observed that aswell that checks sometimes continue even after test but was advised by one of the officers that they are conducting background checks on my application while my application is still in Sydney. I received my AOR march and application is still at the Sydney office no updated status as yet.
I doubt any application will turn into DM while background check is running. Regardless, my question was rather when does the background check start and not when it ends as the latter is very specific to each individual case.
Last internal information available indicated that the following were done attendant a successful completeness check:
-- application file opened in GCMS
-- AOR entered and communicated to applicant
-- referral made to RCMP for criminality background check
-- referral made to CSIS for security background check
-- application forwarded to next step in process (in Sydney)
The application thus then proceeds through the process, and the RCMP and CSIS checks are done concurrently (thus as others allude, their results in effect catch up to the application later in the process, typically AFTER the application has been received by the local office).
Beyond that we can only speculate on what further processing takes place in Sydney before the application is transferred/referred to a local office. There are numerous clues from which we can extrapolate a general idea about how this goes. Some details, however, have obviously changed since the large body of internal information a number of us obtained and shared some years ago. (All this is now so securely behind the confidentiality curtain that efforts to obtain similar information now, using the ATI process, tend to fall way short of getting much.)
In any event, it is apparent that the referral for the RCMP and CSIS clearances are made attendant the completeness check and AOR.
As To Next Step in Sydney:
It is less certain, but various clues indicate that IRCC then conducts another level of screening in Sydney at least somewhat similar to that implemented in 2012, and in routine cases this results in the application having "In Process" status AND being referred/transferred to the local office. It is readily apparent there is some variability in how long it takes for applications to proceed from the completeness check (and attendant actions referenced above) to completion of this screening and referral to the local office.
We do not know much about what is substantively done in this screening step, other than it most likely includes a more or less comprehensive GCMS background screening. It is clear this screening is NOT the strict triage screening implemented in 2012, but it seems likely it is a less strict version of that. In any event, again, it is readily apparent that this step takes longer, sometimes significantly longer, for some applications than others. And why this is so we can only speculate.
Not all speculation is created equal. Among some credible speculation about what might be involved in this step is the possibility that whatever triage criteria is employed, for some applicants it can trigger a Finger Print request or trigger collateral internal inquiry. Such things most likely involve putting the application into a queue for that action. That queue could be a significant factor in how long it takes the application to reach the conclusion of this pre-referral-to-local-office screening. Among more likely internal inquiries, some applicants may be subject to a CBSA travel history review at this stage.
Remember, the GCMS check includes FOSS and thus, for example, this can sometimes trigger a Finger Print request if there is a name-record hit, further remembering that FOSS will return name-record hits for, at the least, RCMP and U.S. FBI/NCIC criminal records (I suspect but do not know that INTERPOL hits also show up).
So some applications sail through this general screening at Sydney, go to "IP" and are sent to the local office, while some more slowly progress through this phase of processing. NOT much if anything to read from this. One applicant's case may end up taking significantly longer at this phase merely because it ends up sitting in a particularly long queue for what may be a rather minor check.
Apparent Gap Between IP and Application Showing Up in Local Office:
There seem to be a number of reports from applicants whose application has IP status but the application APPEARS to not be at the local office. This seems contrary to the view that IP and referral/transfer to the local office are done at the same time.
My impression is that indeed for MOST (albeit not necessarily all) applications, IP and referral to the local office does happen at the same time.
My sense, my guess, is that there is some variability in when the local office in effect receives the application, such that for some applicants the application really is in the local office but does not show this in the GCMS that is available to clients, or accessed by call centre agents, because the local office has not yet logged the application in, the application in effect sitting in a queue for the local office to take action even if that action is little more than logging it into a queue for processing. This could as simple as the application waiting in a queue to be allocated to a responsible processing agent or such, and until that is done the GCMS does not show the application to be at the local office, even though in practical terms it is . . . compare, say, to the time between when the courier shows your application delivered to Sydney and the date IRCC actually conducts the completeness check and enters AOR into the system; between those dates it is as if the application is NOT in Sydney yet it actually is. (This is speculating some, but again not all speculation is created equal.)
-- application file opened in GCMS
-- AOR entered and communicated to applicant
-- referral made to RCMP for criminality background check
-- referral made to CSIS for security background check
-- application forwarded to next step in process (in Sydney)
The application thus then proceeds through the process, and the RCMP and CSIS checks are done concurrently (thus as others allude, their results in effect catch up to the application later in the process, typically AFTER the application has been received by the local office).
Beyond that we can only speculate on what further processing takes place in Sydney before the application is transferred/referred to a local office. There are numerous clues from which we can extrapolate a general idea about how this goes. Some details, however, have obviously changed since the large body of internal information a number of us obtained and shared some years ago. (All this is now so securely behind the confidentiality curtain that efforts to obtain similar information now, using the ATI process, tend to fall way short of getting much.)
In any event, it is apparent that the referral for the RCMP and CSIS clearances are made attendant the completeness check and AOR.
As To Next Step in Sydney:
It is less certain, but various clues indicate that IRCC then conducts another level of screening in Sydney at least somewhat similar to that implemented in 2012, and in routine cases this results in the application having "In Process" status AND being referred/transferred to the local office. It is readily apparent there is some variability in how long it takes for applications to proceed from the completeness check (and attendant actions referenced above) to completion of this screening and referral to the local office.
We do not know much about what is substantively done in this screening step, other than it most likely includes a more or less comprehensive GCMS background screening. It is clear this screening is NOT the strict triage screening implemented in 2012, but it seems likely it is a less strict version of that. In any event, again, it is readily apparent that this step takes longer, sometimes significantly longer, for some applications than others. And why this is so we can only speculate.
Not all speculation is created equal. Among some credible speculation about what might be involved in this step is the possibility that whatever triage criteria is employed, for some applicants it can trigger a Finger Print request or trigger collateral internal inquiry. Such things most likely involve putting the application into a queue for that action. That queue could be a significant factor in how long it takes the application to reach the conclusion of this pre-referral-to-local-office screening. Among more likely internal inquiries, some applicants may be subject to a CBSA travel history review at this stage.
Remember, the GCMS check includes FOSS and thus, for example, this can sometimes trigger a Finger Print request if there is a name-record hit, further remembering that FOSS will return name-record hits for, at the least, RCMP and U.S. FBI/NCIC criminal records (I suspect but do not know that INTERPOL hits also show up).
So some applications sail through this general screening at Sydney, go to "IP" and are sent to the local office, while some more slowly progress through this phase of processing. NOT much if anything to read from this. One applicant's case may end up taking significantly longer at this phase merely because it ends up sitting in a particularly long queue for what may be a rather minor check.
Apparent Gap Between IP and Application Showing Up in Local Office:
There seem to be a number of reports from applicants whose application has IP status but the application APPEARS to not be at the local office. This seems contrary to the view that IP and referral/transfer to the local office are done at the same time.
My impression is that indeed for MOST (albeit not necessarily all) applications, IP and referral to the local office does happen at the same time.
My sense, my guess, is that there is some variability in when the local office in effect receives the application, such that for some applicants the application really is in the local office but does not show this in the GCMS that is available to clients, or accessed by call centre agents, because the local office has not yet logged the application in, the application in effect sitting in a queue for the local office to take action even if that action is little more than logging it into a queue for processing. This could as simple as the application waiting in a queue to be allocated to a responsible processing agent or such, and until that is done the GCMS does not show the application to be at the local office, even though in practical terms it is . . . compare, say, to the time between when the courier shows your application delivered to Sydney and the date IRCC actually conducts the completeness check and enters AOR into the system; between those dates it is as if the application is NOT in Sydney yet it actually is. (This is speculating some, but again not all speculation is created equal.)
BACKGROUND checks in general:
There are three formal clearances:
-- RCMP criminality clearance
-- CSIS security clearance
-- GCMS check
GCMS is done by IRCC. The GCMS check is done REPEATEDLY. Last we knew internal procedure, the GCMS check is required EACH and EVERY TIME there is ANY ACTION TAKEN on the application. Thus, at minimum, IRCC should conduct the GCMS check at least three times in the course of processing the application. There will be a GCMS check not long before the oath is taken.
The RCMP criminality and CSIS security checks are done by the RCMP and CSIS respectively. On referral (usually in large batches). And sometimes IRCC requires an updated clearance.
While some applicants have more complicated histories than others, and can indeed encounter longer waiting times for either of these clearances, the vast majority of applicants should not encounter much if any delay due to these.
I strongly suspect that IRCC call agents, based in part on GCMS DEFAULT codes (same seen in the reports generated for client disclosure), report that the next step in processing is waiting on a clearance when in fact the application is merely sitting in queue waiting for a processing agent to take another action. That is, that the application is not on hold, not really waiting for a clearance from RCMP or CSIS, but is in queue waiting for a processing agent to act on it.
Similar to gap between date courier delivers app to Sydney and AOR date, and possibly (my speculation) the gap between IP and delivery to local office and date local office takes some action (even if just to log the application for future action), it is quite possible that there is a gap between the date when clearances are submitted to IRCC by RCMP and CSIS respectively, and the later date when a responsible processing agent formally logs completion of the clearances into the file . . . such that any inquiries into status in the meantime (ATIP or call centre agent) show clearances as not yet complete EVEN IF in effect they are.
Sure, this is largely speculation on my part. But for qualified applicants who accurately and properly completed their applications, who have provided accurate and complete information, and who have no reason to have criminal or security clearance snags, this seems like a rather likely explanation why a call centre agent will say the application is waiting on clearances.
In particular, the vast majority of applicants have no criminality or security concerns. None. Those checks, the RCMP and CSIS clearances, are NO problem, NO cause for delay.
In the meantime, the bigger, more pervasive, more extensive BACKGROUND checking is done by IRCC. The nature and scope of this probably varies considerably. For most applicants there are minimal concerns, minimal reasons to dig much into the applicant's background.
But for some, sure, IRCC is going to go digging, digging beyond comparing the details in the application and the applicant's immigration history.
The GCMS search, for example, can go well beyond the applicant's personal records. IRCC can run a GCMS search for any telephone number, address, or employer listed in the application, checking to see whether there are any notes or alerts for the particular phone number, address, or employer, checking to see if the phone number, address, or employer has been listed by other immigrants, and especially checking to see if any of these have popped up in a suspicious case in the past.
IRCC does make telephone calls. Sometimes to the applicant (I got one). Sometimes to an employer.
IRCC can conduct collateral inquiries, searching open sources on the Internet. For example, it appears that LinkedIn and Canada411 are among the most common sources researched for information about applicants. As I have discussed elsewhere, IRCC may do a LinkedIn query regarding Robert M. Applicantguy by also searching for records or information for a Robby or Rob or Roberto Applicantguy, Bob or Bobby Applicantguy, R.M. Applicantguy, among many other variations.
The information uncovered in any such research may trigger additional inquiries. We have seen officially published decisions in actual cases in which IRCC relied on LinkedIn information posted for a name only similar to the immigrant's name, and required the immigrant to prove it was NOT her, which she failed to do so far as IRCC and the Court determined. Thus, the employment information in that account which contradicted the immigrant's information was held against her (I do not recall if this was a PR loss of status case or a denial of citizenship case).
Again, most applicants are not going to encounter such extensive investigation of their background. Some will. With a lot of variation in-between.
There are three formal clearances:
-- RCMP criminality clearance
-- CSIS security clearance
-- GCMS check
GCMS is done by IRCC. The GCMS check is done REPEATEDLY. Last we knew internal procedure, the GCMS check is required EACH and EVERY TIME there is ANY ACTION TAKEN on the application. Thus, at minimum, IRCC should conduct the GCMS check at least three times in the course of processing the application. There will be a GCMS check not long before the oath is taken.
The RCMP criminality and CSIS security checks are done by the RCMP and CSIS respectively. On referral (usually in large batches). And sometimes IRCC requires an updated clearance.
While some applicants have more complicated histories than others, and can indeed encounter longer waiting times for either of these clearances, the vast majority of applicants should not encounter much if any delay due to these.
I strongly suspect that IRCC call agents, based in part on GCMS DEFAULT codes (same seen in the reports generated for client disclosure), report that the next step in processing is waiting on a clearance when in fact the application is merely sitting in queue waiting for a processing agent to take another action. That is, that the application is not on hold, not really waiting for a clearance from RCMP or CSIS, but is in queue waiting for a processing agent to act on it.
Similar to gap between date courier delivers app to Sydney and AOR date, and possibly (my speculation) the gap between IP and delivery to local office and date local office takes some action (even if just to log the application for future action), it is quite possible that there is a gap between the date when clearances are submitted to IRCC by RCMP and CSIS respectively, and the later date when a responsible processing agent formally logs completion of the clearances into the file . . . such that any inquiries into status in the meantime (ATIP or call centre agent) show clearances as not yet complete EVEN IF in effect they are.
Sure, this is largely speculation on my part. But for qualified applicants who accurately and properly completed their applications, who have provided accurate and complete information, and who have no reason to have criminal or security clearance snags, this seems like a rather likely explanation why a call centre agent will say the application is waiting on clearances.
In particular, the vast majority of applicants have no criminality or security concerns. None. Those checks, the RCMP and CSIS clearances, are NO problem, NO cause for delay.
In the meantime, the bigger, more pervasive, more extensive BACKGROUND checking is done by IRCC. The nature and scope of this probably varies considerably. For most applicants there are minimal concerns, minimal reasons to dig much into the applicant's background.
But for some, sure, IRCC is going to go digging, digging beyond comparing the details in the application and the applicant's immigration history.
The GCMS search, for example, can go well beyond the applicant's personal records. IRCC can run a GCMS search for any telephone number, address, or employer listed in the application, checking to see whether there are any notes or alerts for the particular phone number, address, or employer, checking to see if the phone number, address, or employer has been listed by other immigrants, and especially checking to see if any of these have popped up in a suspicious case in the past.
IRCC does make telephone calls. Sometimes to the applicant (I got one). Sometimes to an employer.
IRCC can conduct collateral inquiries, searching open sources on the Internet. For example, it appears that LinkedIn and Canada411 are among the most common sources researched for information about applicants. As I have discussed elsewhere, IRCC may do a LinkedIn query regarding Robert M. Applicantguy by also searching for records or information for a Robby or Rob or Roberto Applicantguy, Bob or Bobby Applicantguy, R.M. Applicantguy, among many other variations.
The information uncovered in any such research may trigger additional inquiries. We have seen officially published decisions in actual cases in which IRCC relied on LinkedIn information posted for a name only similar to the immigrant's name, and required the immigrant to prove it was NOT her, which she failed to do so far as IRCC and the Court determined. Thus, the employment information in that account which contradicted the immigrant's information was held against her (I do not recall if this was a PR loss of status case or a denial of citizenship case).
Again, most applicants are not going to encounter such extensive investigation of their background. Some will. With a lot of variation in-between.