When to obtain a consultation with a lawyer (a true consultation, paid for, in which a lawyer actually and substantively reviews and evaluates the details of the particular case), let alone when to retain a lawyer to assist (undertake representation or otherwise take actual action), is a HUGE subject that is very specific to the particular individual applicant.
The vast majority of qualified applicants should never need a lawyer's input let alone representation; and of course there is not much a lawyer can do for applicants who are not qualified, unless the unqualified applicant needs help understanding why they are not qualified and what they need to do to qualify.
Applicant's Desire to Know Why:
As has been discussed, a large part of the frustration surrounding the cancellation of a scheduled oath is the lack of meaningful communication explaining why. The communications are generic, non-specific. Many of those affected, for various reasons, have a strong urge to know more, to at least know why with some information about what happens next; some appear to more or less demand to know why.
I understand this, this wanting to know, but it is largely barking up an empty tree. The decision to cancel a scheduled event, without substantively denying the application, is almost certainly in the range of internal decision-making that is mostly (not entirely) administrative procedure not subject to review, either administratively or judicially. The procedural fairness standards tend to be rather broad, general, in this range. That is, IRCC will generally (with exceptions) NOT need to justify or explain the decision.
In contrast, just for context (trying to avoid getting too much into the weeds), decisions which directly affect the applicant's status or the outcome of the application, must meet more stringent procedural fairness requirements, requiring detailed explanation of the reasons for the decision. There is a big difference in a decision to conduct further review, for example (see post by
@ShazLilly referencing MP's statement about the cancelled oath being "
due to further review") in contrast to a decision to deny a grant of citizenship.
Thus, while an applicant will get notice of a decision that postpones finalization of the application, that notice does not need to meet the procedural fairness requirements of notice for a decision rejecting the application. Above I alluded to exceptions. There are, it seems, always exceptions. Here, also just as an example, there may be circumstances in which postponing the oath or otherwise finalizing the application amounts to a de facto denial or is otherwise part of an unreasonable delay (a decision to cancel the oath based on the applicant's religion or skin colour would, of course, be unreasonable and subject to recourse; not sure how often that happens, but probably not at all often).
In the latter situations, where cancelling the oath is part of an unreasonable delay for example, recourse may be pursued by seeking a Writ of Mandamus . . . another HUGE, and very complex subject, and definitely
NEED-a-LAWYER STUFF. Mandamus is discussed at length in other topics here. Again, however,
the vast majority of qualified applicants should never need a lawyer's input let alone representation, and never need to pursue an extraordinary remedy like mandamus, AND for most of those affected by cancellation of a scheduled oath, as I previously noted, what that really means is, "
sorry, not now, you will need to wait longer" . . . recognizing that how much longer will vary widely and is largely unpredictable.
Actual Reasons Why . . . Noting, They Vary . . . and can vary by a lot . . .
In many of these cases there probably was simply an "
administrative error" in scheduling the oath, requiring it to be cancelled. Reminder:
bureaucracy is what bureaucracies do . . . and making bureaucratic, or "
administrative" errors is indeed something even bureaucracies far less complex than IRCC are prone to do, rather often. No one should be at all surprised that sometimes an applicant is scheduled for the oath (or other event, like an interview) due to an administrative error, necessitating the scheduled event be cancelled . . . pending further processing.
There are way too many possible errors to try enumerating any . . . but I will throw one into this for illustrative purposes: too many applicants scheduled for oath in a given setting, requiring IRCC to cancel some.
Additionally, apart from administrative error, it is likely there are many and varied reasons why some applicants scheduled for the oath are NOT actually qualified to be granted citizenship, at least not YET, necessitating the cancellation of the oath, again pending further processing . . . which can arise due to a broad range of reasons, from this or that technicality (resulting in little delay), to a wide range of reasons for IRCC to conduct "
further review," which in turn can range from some simple, minor checks causing little delay, to extensive, full-blown investigations which could include referral to other agencies.
For the affected applicant this can be inconvenient and disappointing, but if their application has not reached the stage of processing at which citizenship is to be granted, they are not entitled to a grant of citizenship; oath must be cancelled.
What Might a Lawyer Do:
A lawyer will not be able to compel IRCC to grant citizenship if the applicant has not yet been determined to qualify for the grant. So there is not much a lawyer can accomplish just because the applicant was scheduled for the oath, and that was then cancelled because IRCC identified the need for further processing.
For applicants subject to unreasonable delays, recourse through mandamus may be pursued, and as noted, this almost absolutely requires the assistance of a lawyer. But this is an EXTRAORDINARY remedy, not recourse for delays generally. See other topics about this.
Requests For Reasons:
As many here report, there are various ways applicants can seek more information, ranging from calling the help line to webform inquiries, engaging the assistance of MPs or making ATIP requests. And as most of those further report, what they learn tends to be way short of satisfying, not particularly informative. This too is a separate subject, and itself a big subject, ranging from the oft-reported micro-monitoring efforts many engage in (which can be interesting but generally does not generate useful information that will assist much in the applicant's decision-making), to complex cases entangled in serious issues requiring intensive proactive actions (which will often lead to situations in which getting the help of a lawyer is at least a good idea).
Here too,
for the VAST MAJORITY of QUALIFIED APPLICANTS, there is NO NEED to WORRY, little need to pursue explanation. Nothing is off track. There is no serious issue endangering the application. For most, as said multiple times, all the cancelled oath means is that the applicant needs to wait longer.
We live in an age of deep distrust, which has reached pathological proportions in many contexts. So far, other than some of the more or less obvious flaws and shortcomings of IRCC (excessive processing times looming large; barely coherent and too often otherwise downright difficult to understand communications, which in too many respects fail to be adequate communications, another major problem), there really is almost NO reason to harbour such distrust for IRCC decision-making and procedures for citizenship applicants . . . with some individual exceptions (always those damn exceptions).
For the vast majority, all the cancelled oath means, as has been said again and again, and which really is rather obvious, is that the applicant needs to wait longer; things are on track, slowly as it tends to go at IRCC.
Concluding Remarks:
There is nothing to indicate that cancelling the oath in some cases, even many cases, is improper, let alone contrary to law.
Despite the inconvenience and disappointment, for the vast majority the reasons are largely insignificant, and there is no need to tangle with IRCC over it, no need to pursue some remedy.
For those who, unfortunately, might be subject to more extensive additional processing, such as further review to the extent that there may be one form or another of an intensive investigation pending, those situations are what they are, in that particular individual's specific case, depending on the particular questions and concerns at stake. In these scenarios what will happen, and what the applicant might be able to do, or will need to do, is far more about the particular questions and concerns at stake than it is about the procedural act of cancelling a scheduled oath.
