Citizenship test: Collective action required, or expect endless delays, years. Example of the effective lobbyng of people awaiting spousal sponsorship

[dpenabill]

It is not clear to me why this outdated topic (to make a call for urgent action which obviously fell short of its objective some time ago, LAST year) has suddenly revived and gotten bogged down in revisiting debates about PRs applying for citizenship and living abroad after applying.

This issue almost always invites competing views about how the law, or rules, SHOULD work, what the law or rules SHOULD be.

Such disputes, as to what the rules should be, are usually a distraction, tending to detract from or outright confuse efforts to figure out and explain what the law and rules actually are, and how they actually do work, and how to use this information to make better decisions navigating the system, including how to advocate for actions which will encourage IRCC to resume normal operations and more efficiently, and timely, proceed with the necessary steps in processing citizenship applications.

In particular, any debate about how Canada should approach grant citizenship applicants who relocate abroad soon after applying for citizenship does not address the subject of this topic: HOW to GET IRCC to RESUME NORMAL PROCESSING or at least get back on track processing applications within a reasonable time frame.

Even more off topic is engaging in debate about how Canada should approach grant citizenship applicants who "INTEND" to relocate abroad soon after acquiring citizenship.

The main reason those issues came up in this topic LAST year, and which somewhat underlies more recent comments, is that some of the calls for urgent action were supported by arguments about the negative impact of delays on applicants who needed a Canadian passport to travel abroad. Last September I cautioned that this argument would likely be counter-productive, more likely to dissuade government decision-makers from recognizing the detrimental impact of delaying citizenship application processing. This was largely about some push-back, against the activism, by forum participants challenging What's-the-Rush?

That is, some of the push-back was emphasizing that other government functions needed more attention and thus, as for granting citizenship, some asked What's-the-Rush? To which more than a few of the responses emphasized how important it was for some applicants to get a Canadian passport sooner rather than later. Including some saying they needed a Canadian passport for employment opportunities, either for positions abroad or for positions involving the need to travel abroad.

Which brings this to one of several misguided comments in this recent discussion:

"passport of convenience": This is not abuse.

That was in response to the following:

Unfortunately there is a lot of abuse by individuals around residency requirements with some individuals only interest in procuring a "passport of convenience".

Whatever an individual's personal view is, there is no doubt that MOST Canadians, and probably most personnel working for IRCC, do consider immigrant schemes oriented around obtaining a Canadian passport as a "passport of convenience" to be an abuse of the Canadian immigration system. It would be a mistake to not recognize this. It would be a mistake to overtly communicate to IRCC that is the plan, that the reason for pursuing Canadian citizenship is to obtain a Canadian passport. It is not illegal. There is nothing about pursuing a "passport of convenience" in itself that will disqualify a PR from eligibility for citizenship. But it would be safe to bet your last loonie that if the processing agent or citizenship officer handling the citizenship application so much as PERCEIVES that is the applicant's agenda, that will lead to a substantial RISK of elevated scrutiny and non-routine processing, quite possibly including RQ-related non-routine processing as well as, potentially, other investigatory non-routine processing, and the attendant delays.

Some agree with that is how it should be. Others think the contrary. Again, whatever view one has about whether this is how it should be or not, it would be utterly foolish to not recognize the potential impact of being perceived to be applying for Canadian citizenship in pursuit of a "passport of convenience."

At the least, the very least, there is a very significant RISK that IRCC personal will have concerns about the credibility of applicants perceived to be pursuing a "passport of convenience." Other than meeting the requirements and properly making the application, including providing complete and accurate information, credibility is perhaps the next biggest factor influencing how things go. Motive to cheat does not establish someone was cheating. But again it is a safe bet that when processing agents or citizenship officers perceive the applicant has a motive to cheat, such as when they see an applicant who appears to be seeking a "passport of convenience," the level of scrutiny and risk of non-routine processing goes up.

.. there are thousands of ppl who were successfully granted Citizenship while relocating abroad.

That may be true if you are counting the number in total over a period of many years. Otherwise, this looks like a made-up data point pulled from thin air. (If not, cite and link your source.)

Similarly, in reference to IRCC putting an application on hold or otherwise stalling the processing,

They simply do it most cases for gaining time, which is what we have seen in 99.99% of cases.

This is even more obviously a made-up, pulled from thin air data-point. (If not, cite and link your source.)

Beyond that . . . the Risks Of Living Abroad After Applying:

Even if it is true that "thousands" who left Canada to live abroad after applying for citizenship have been granted citizenship, it is readily apparent that many who move abroad soon after applying run into problems, ranging from non-routine processing related delays, to sometimes profoundly inconvenient RQ-related non-routine processing, and depending on the particular details, problems which sometimes result in being denied.

Those who dismiss the report a lawyer cautioned prospective applicants that living abroad after applying could cause problems are either in denial or deliberately misleading. Many in government refer to this as "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport." It is considered problematic. How to deal with it is where most in government tend to disagree. That is, even among the Liberals and NDP in government, it is very likely that most apprehend applicants "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport" constitute a problem and should at least be more thoroughly screened; they just do not agree with the more draconian measures the Conservatives have implemented in the past and are likely to advocate going forward.

There is no doubt, after all, that the procedures currently employed in processing applicants involve strict measures to assure that applicants are IN Canada for things like knowledge of Canada testing, interviews, and taking the oath. Take-a-hint one might . . . well, hint.

Coming from the other direction, it is readily apparent that many of those applicants who have relocated abroad after applying make a concerted effort to avoid alerting IRCC that they have moved abroad. While some might label that paranoia, or otherwise consider it to be based on unfounded fears, the odds lean heavily in the other direction.

Again, I take no sides in this. I am simply reporting what we know about how things actually work. Overall, make no mistake, those applicants seen to be applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport are at much higher risk for encountering, at the least, delays and non-routine processing.


INTENT TO RESIDE . . .

As I earlier noted, this is a tangent wandering far afield of this thread's subject. Since the subject itself is largely moot or at the least outdated (the question looming large now, in the soon-to-be post-Covid phase of things, is how to encourage IRCC to begin addressing how to accelerate processing timelines and deal with the now huge backlog), no harm, no foul.

But I will address this in a separate post . . .

 

[dpenabill]

INTENT TO RESIDE . . .

Again, this is off-topic. But as this subject, "intent to reside," has evoked from the day the Harper government tabled the Bill to include an "intent to continue residing in Canada" requirement for a grant of citizenship (back in early 2014), comments here have been well off the mark. Some clarification is warranted.

As others have noted, this subject has been addressed at length in other topics. So I do not intend to fully address all the comments here. I think I can adequately clarify things with reference to just two of the posts above:

CIC can put your application on hold if they find out you have plans to relocate outside Canada after being granted Citizenship. Many people are waiting for the passport to apply for jobs abroad or move out permanently, but if they express that intend during an interview changes are this could affect the speed of their process and result in more scrutiny for your file. This is what one my relatives was told a few years ago by a immigration lawyer when he has going through the process.
I think the same would apply for the people who try to request urgent processing due to a job offer outside the country.

And one of the responses to that post . . .

This is nonsense. What you are telling us effectively creates double-class Canadian Citizens because they intend to leave overseas ?? It is a fundamental right of all Canadian Citizens, whether naturalized or born-Canadian, to come and go from Canada as they please. Therefore, IRCC cannot put your Citizenship application on hold because you intend to move out of Canada once you are granted Citizenship. Though, there was once a clause in the application, prior to 2015, that required aspiring Canadians to intend to reside in Canada upon Canadian Citizenship being granted. However, the Trudeau government repealed this requirement when he took office in 2015 because it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Don’t believe everything you’re told.

Without getting tangled in what constitutes a "hold," or "suspending" processing of an application, or what simply amounts to putting an application in a queue for non-routine processing that can add months or even years to the processing timeline, no advanced degrees in philosophy are necessary to grasp the rather obvious concept that applicants perceived to have an agenda inconsistent with the purpose for granting citizenship to immigrants are far more likely to encounter procedures which can delay the process for a long time . . . in another topic I recently referenced and linked a case involving a still pending citizenship application made MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO. That's very unusual. Even the numerous other long-time pending citizenship applications I have cited and linked, over the last many years, with timelines ranging from three, four, six, or more years, are NOT common. But two plus years has been common. The point, though, is that processing can be delayed for some for a very long time.

Let's be clear, the purpose for granting citizenship to immigrants is in significant, if not dominant part, so they will SETTLE and LIVE in Canada PERMANENTLY. Whether that is what the purpose should be or not, that's another subject. But that is its purpose. That is how it is.

What impact this has for those applying for citizenship is mostly indirect. There is no direct mechanism, no particular eligibility requirement, which mandates or enforces the application of this purpose to a particular immigrant applying for citizenship.

That was not always true. I will get to that.

But for now, again without getting bogged down in the precise way in which a citizenship application might be more or less stalled, or "on hold" as some might describe it, yeah, applicants perceived to have an agenda contrary to the purpose for which citizenship is granted are at least at higher risk for non-routine processing which can lead to very lengthy delays. The remarks by @Coco7 in essence acknowledging this are not at all nonsense . . . even if one believes that how IRCC does this deserves to be criticized as nonsense.

I addressed the passport-of-convenience and applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport scenarios in a previous post. These are the more obvious and more common examples where those individuals who IRCC officials perceive to be such applicants have a much higher risk of non-routine processing, and a risk of lengthy delays likewise.

Similarly for those who might be perceived to not intend to reside in Canada after becoming a citizen, which is contrary to the purpose for a grant of citizenship . . . but perhaps not so much so UNLESS it is blatantly obvious.

A key distinction demands explanation. A citizenship application cannot be rejected because the applicant does not intend to reside in Canada. HOWEVER, if and when IRCC officials perceive that an applicant does not intend to reside in Canada, that can influence what officials might apprehend or suspect about the applicant.

And this does not loom up out of the blue, but rather tends to be connected to certain factual scenarios . . . an example referenced by others here is one, where the citizenship applicant's spouse has remained abroad and the applicant joins the spouse abroad soon after applying for citizenship. Here's a clue: there is enough reason to investigate a person's actual whereabouts if that person has represented they were in Canada but it is apparent that person's spouse was living in a different country. Most spouses live together. So that is enough reason to investigate whether the citizenship applicant spouse was actually with the spouse abroad more than disclosed in the citizenship application. Investigations tend to result in processing delays.

So the elevated scrutiny and consequent delays attendant further investigation in such a scenario is NOT about apprehending the applicant's intent is to live abroad, but about more fully investigating the applicant otherwise given the implications of that intent, especially as to documenting particular elements like meeting the actual physical presence requirement.

Some Misunderstandings:

This goes back to the post by @novascotia27, which is off the mark in several respects:

This is nonsense. What you are telling us effectively creates double-class Canadian Citizens because they intend to leave overseas ?? It is a fundamental right of all Canadian Citizens, whether naturalized or born-Canadian, to come and go from Canada as they please. Therefore, IRCC cannot put your Citizenship application on hold because you intend to move out of Canada once you are granted Citizenship. Though, there was once a clause in the application, prior to 2015, that required aspiring Canadians to intend to reside in Canada upon Canadian Citizenship being granted. However, the Trudeau government repealed this requirement when he took office in 2015 because it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Let's be clear: unless and until a PR takes the oath and actually becomes a Canadian citizen, there is NO Charter right to come and go from Canada as the person pleases. Section 6 in the Charter explicitly ONLY protects the international travel rights of Canadian citizens, NOT PRs.

In terms of details, what many refer to as the "intent to reside" requirement for citizenship, which was really a requirement that a PR applying for citizenship intend to CONTINUE residing in Canada, was not repealed until June 2017. The application form for applying for citizenship continued to include the intent clause until June 2017. It was the Trudeau government that repealed this requirement, and that government was elected in 2015, and early in 2016 IRCC adopted a policy to not enforce that requirement. But it remained part of the law, and the application, until June 2017.

It was not repealed because it violated the Charter of Rights. Since, after all, it did not violate the Charter of Rights. Sorting out the political reasons for repealing that provision is a big subject in itself, recognizing there was widespread confusion and misunderstanding about what that requirement was and what it meant. It had, to be clear and contrary to widely disseminated misinformation, NO impact on anyone after they became a citizen.

Its purpose and intended operation was more pedestrian. Since a person who is not living in Canada cannot intend to CONTINUE residing in Canada, since a person cannot logically intend to continue doing what they are not doing, it gave CIC/IRCC authority to reject an application on the sole ground that an applicant was not residing in Canada after applying. It was specifically aimed at those applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, which was a pet peeve of Harper, Kenney, Perrin, and Alexander.

But there are many reasons why a PR applying for citizenship might be living outside Canada after applying, ranging from employment assignments to attending graduate programs, among others, so other than the Conservatives most thought that requirement was so harsh and heavy-handed as to be draconian. And the widespread distortion of the requirement, making it appear even more draconian than it was (many vociferously, even though erroneously, claimed it affected naturalized citizens and rendered them "second-class" citizens, when actually the latter was about the other Harper added provision allowing for the revocation of citizenship for those who committed certain types of crimes), was an effective campaign issue.

 

[harirajmohan]

This is even more obviously a made-up, pulled from thin air data-point. (If not, cite and link your source.)

As I earlier noted, this is a tangent wandering far afield of this thread's subject. Since the subject itself is largely moot or at the least outdated (the question looming large now, in the soon-to-be post-Covid phase of things, is how to encourage IRCC to begin addressing how to accelerate processing timelines and deal with the now huge backlog), no harm, no foul.

But I will address this in a separate post . . .

Can we get statistics on offical's action on how they adjudicate and how they place the files on hold? No. Do you get statistics on how cic delays the files? No. Same way i cant give statistics source which is not recorded.

Majority of files are actually delayed without any reason either it gets approved after long delay or filing in federal court clears most of it. This shows that cic officers are putting files on hold/not reviewing for no reason(yes no reason at all which they cant justify as per law). They have been given broader authority just to put the files on hold or delay without any higher officials approval. This is the truth.

We only just assume based on whats written in cic saying " if its complex then it gets delayed". This vague statement is just one proof that how much responsible/accountable cic is. This policy is just to back them up legally for cic to cover up their laziness in doing their job poorly and to avoid questions from us on their delays.

Lets look at how cic officers review the files:
1. Passport pages: This is waste of time. they should not be trusting my passport pages since all travel doesnt have stamps. why do they ask? Because they verify with the procedure they had 20 years ago when cbsa doesnt have all entry exit information. Should they be following it now? No. If they are actually verifying the days from cbsa records then they shouldnt be asking me all pages of passport and the height is that they even ask for I94 records. Why would this officer trust me on the passport pages i give and the i94 pages provided by some other country to approve Canadian citizenship? This procedure is completely flawed. Candidates can give partial/modified information for which officers are supposed to be using passport pages(first and last page) just for identification verification, not for residency days verification.

2. Health care summary data: Why would any officer ask for this? This is not a requirement for citizenship. Again this is waste of time. I will have no data. why would officer waste time in asking and verifying this data when this is not the deciding factor for approval of citizenship. This method is age old verification method same as verifying passport pages.

3. Child's school records: How this will help in approving citizenship information? I dont want to give this data or i dont have this data. Again this is the 20 year old practice. This is too a waste of time. This is not a requirement for citizenship.

4. Asking on residential and employment records: Again above same situation. Junk data for them legally to reject based on the information i provide on these. This was the old practice to make sure candidate was resided inside the country but this one is not required anymore. This is not a requirement for citizenship.

I understand the if cic officers ask these documents just for few % of the people for audit purpose or for residence days doubtful files but they ask for lot of people.

My point is, cic officers still verify the applications in the old method and waste time like mentioned above and of course they do put some files on hold via the same old verification methods illegally hence these large delays.

 

[MrChazz]

Today's news has some important information from the relevant "watchdog":

Watchdog says immigration applicants need easier access to info on their files (msn.com)

 

[MrChazz]

It is not clear to me why this outdated topic (to make a call for urgent action which obviously fell short of its objective some time ago, LAST year) has suddenly revived and gotten bogged down in revisiting debates about PRs applying for citizenship and living abroad after applying.

This issue almost always invites competing views about how the law, or rules, SHOULD work, what the law or rules SHOULD be.

Such disputes, as to what the rules should be, are usually a distraction, tending to detract from or outright confuse efforts to figure out and explain what the law and rules actually are, and how they actually do work, and how to use this information to make better decisions navigating the system, including how to advocate for actions which will encourage IRCC to resume normal operations and more efficiently, and timely, proceed with the necessary steps in processing citizenship applications.

In particular, any debate about how Canada should approach grant citizenship applicants who relocate abroad soon after applying for citizenship does not address the subject of this topic: HOW to GET IRCC to RESUME NORMAL PROCESSING or at least get back on track processing applications within a reasonable time frame.

Even more off topic is engaging in debate about how Canada should approach grant citizenship applicants who "INTEND" to relocate abroad soon after acquiring citizenship.

The main reason those issues came up in this topic LAST year, and which somewhat underlies more recent comments, is that some of the calls for urgent action were supported by arguments about the negative impact of delays on applicants who needed a Canadian passport to travel abroad. Last September I cautioned that this argument would likely be counter-productive, more likely to dissuade government decision-makers from recognizing the detrimental impact of delaying citizenship application processing. This was largely about some push-back, against the activism, by forum participants challenging What's-the-Rush?

That is, some of the push-back was emphasizing that other government functions needed more attention and thus, as for granting citizenship, some asked What's-the-Rush? To which more than a few of the responses emphasized how important it was for some applicants to get a Canadian passport sooner rather than later. Including some saying they needed a Canadian passport for employment opportunities, either for positions abroad or for positions involving the need to travel abroad.

Which brings this to one of several misguided comments in this recent discussion:



That was in response to the following:



Whatever an individual's personal view is, there is no doubt that MOST Canadians, and probably most personnel working for IRCC, do consider immigrant schemes oriented around obtaining a Canadian passport as a "passport of convenience" to be an abuse of the Canadian immigration system. It would be a mistake to not recognize this. It would be a mistake to overtly communicate to IRCC that is the plan, that the reason for pursuing Canadian citizenship is to obtain a Canadian passport. It is not illegal. There is nothing about pursuing a "passport of convenience" in itself that will disqualify a PR from eligibility for citizenship. But it would be safe to bet your last loonie that if the processing agent or citizenship officer handling the citizenship application so much as PERCEIVES that is the applicant's agenda, that will lead to a substantial RISK of elevated scrutiny and non-routine processing, quite possibly including RQ-related non-routine processing as well as, potentially, other investigatory non-routine processing, and the attendant delays.

Some agree with that is how it should be. Others think the contrary. Again, whatever view one has about whether this is how it should be or not, it would be utterly foolish to not recognize the potential impact of being perceived to be applying for Canadian citizenship in pursuit of a "passport of convenience."

At the least, the very least, there is a very significant RISK that IRCC personal will have concerns about the credibility of applicants perceived to be pursuing a "passport of convenience." Other than meeting the requirements and properly making the application, including providing complete and accurate information, credibility is perhaps the next biggest factor influencing how things go. Motive to cheat does not establish someone was cheating. But again it is a safe bet that when processing agents or citizenship officers perceive the applicant has a motive to cheat, such as when they see an applicant who appears to be seeking a "passport of convenience," the level of scrutiny and risk of non-routine processing goes up.




That may be true if you are counting the number in total over a period of many years. Otherwise, this looks like a made-up data point pulled from thin air. (If not, cite and link your source.)

Similarly, in reference to IRCC putting an application on hold or otherwise stalling the processing,


This is even more obviously a made-up, pulled from thin air data-point. (If not, cite and link your source.)

Beyond that . . . the Risks Of Living Abroad After Applying:

Even if it is true that "thousands" who left Canada to live abroad after applying for citizenship have been granted citizenship, it is readily apparent that many who move abroad soon after applying run into problems, ranging from non-routine processing related delays, to sometimes profoundly inconvenient RQ-related non-routine processing, and depending on the particular details, problems which sometimes result in being denied.

Those who dismiss the report a lawyer cautioned prospective applicants that living abroad after applying could cause problems are either in denial or deliberately misleading. Many in government refer to this as "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport." It is considered problematic. How to deal with it is where most in government tend to disagree. That is, even among the Liberals and NDP in government, it is very likely that most apprehend applicants "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport" constitute a problem and should at least be more thoroughly screened; they just do not agree with the more draconian measures the Conservatives have implemented in the past and are likely to advocate going forward.

There is no doubt, after all, that the procedures currently employed in processing applicants involve strict measures to assure that applicants are IN Canada for things like knowledge of Canada testing, interviews, and taking the oath. Take-a-hint one might . . . well, hint.

Coming from the other direction, it is readily apparent that many of those applicants who have relocated abroad after applying make a concerted effort to avoid alerting IRCC that they have moved abroad. While some might label that paranoia, or otherwise consider it to be based on unfounded fears, the odds lean heavily in the other direction.

Again, I take no sides in this. I am simply reporting what we know about how things actually work. Overall, make no mistake, those applicants seen to be applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport are at much higher risk for encountering, at the least, delays and non-routine processing.


INTENT TO RESIDE . . .

As I earlier noted, this is a tangent wandering far afield of this thread's subject. Since the subject itself is largely moot or at the least outdated (the question looming large now, in the soon-to-be post-Covid phase of things, is how to encourage IRCC to begin addressing how to accelerate processing timelines and deal with the now huge backlog), no harm, no foul.

But I will address this in a separate post . . .

All that may well be so. But you need to look at significant legal rulings in such matters. One of those involved a case where a person was denied citizenship because the view was that he was spending a lot of time abroad and merely wanted a "passport of convenience". The ruling by the high court was that the immigration officer's views were totally irrelevant in such a subjective manner; that what mattered was whether or not the person had satisfied the requirements as laid down. The effect of that ruling was major, and IRCC operations manuals etc. direct officers to keep their personal, subjective view out of such matters. It may well happen, but that would be a serious breach of both the law and IRCC directives.

 

[novascotia27]

Today's news has some important information from the relevant "watchdog":

Watchdog says immigration applicants need easier access to info on their files (msn.com)

At least they’re putting pressure to IRCC. Is evident that they’re subjecting applicants to undue process and unnecessary pain

All that may well be so. But you need to look at significant legal rulings in such matters. One of those involved a case where a person was denied citizenship because the view was that he was spending a lot of time abroad and merely wanted a "passport of convenience". The ruling by the high court was that the immigration officer's views were totally irrelevant in such a subjective manner; that what mattered was whether or not the person had satisfied the requirements as laid down. The effect of that ruling was major, and IRCC operations manuals etc. direct officers to keep their personal, subjective view out of such matters. It may well happen, but that would be a serious breach of both the law and IRCC directives.

100% agreed with this fact

 

[MrChazz]

Can we get statistics on offical's action on how they adjudicate and how they place the files on hold? No. Do you get statistics on how cic delays the files? No. Same way i cant give statistics source which is not recorded.

Majority of files are actually delayed without any reason either it gets approved after long delay or filing in federal court clears most of it. This shows that cic officers are putting files on hold/not reviewing for no reason(yes no reason at all which they cant justify as per law). They have been given broader authority just to put the files on hold or delay without any higher officials approval. This is the truth.

We only just assume based on whats written in cic saying " if its complex then it gets delayed". This vague statement is just one proof that how much responsible/accountable cic is. This policy is just to back them up legally for cic to cover up their laziness in doing their job poorly and to avoid questions from us on their delays.

Lets look at how cic officers review the files:
1. Passport pages: This is waste of time. they should not be trusting my passport pages since all travel doesnt have stamps. why do they ask? Because they verify with the procedure they had 20 years ago when cbsa doesnt have all entry exit information. Should they be following it now? No. If they are actually verifying the days from cbsa records then they shouldnt be asking me all pages of passport and the height is that they even ask for I94 records. Why would this officer trust me on the passport pages i give and the i94 pages provided by some other country to approve Canadian citizenship? This procedure is completely flawed. Candidates can give partial/modified information for which officers are supposed to be using passport pages(first and last page) just for identification verification, not for residency days verification.

2. Health care summary data: Why would any officer ask for this? This is not a requirement for citizenship. Again this is waste of time. I will have no data. why would officer waste time in asking and verifying this data when this is not the deciding factor for approval of citizenship. This method is age old verification method same as verifying passport pages.

3. Child's school records: How this will help in approving citizenship information? I dont want to give this data or i dont have this data. Again this is the 20 year old practice. This is too a waste of time. This is not a requirement for citizenship.

4. Asking on residential and employment records: Again above same situation. Junk data for them legally to reject based on the information i provide on these. This was the old practice to make sure candidate was resided inside the country but this one is not required anymore. This is not a requirement for citizenship.

I understand the if cic officers ask these documents just for few % of the people for audit purpose or for residence days doubtful files but they ask for lot of people.

My point is, cic officers still verify the applications in the old method and waste time like mentioned above and of course they do put some files on hold via the same old verification methods illegally hence these large delays.

All of the above makes sense, but there is a lot more pointless stuff even beyond that. For example, the use of "non-routine" to justify apparent laziness, as in "that means we may take as long as we like".

Now, consider the case of a fingerprint RCMP check, which is one of the reasons for a "non-routine" classification. Even after IRCC receives the result and confirms that there is no issue---and this will even be reflected in the GCMS notes---the case will still remain as "non-routine", on the basis of the original RCMP check. What is the reasoning for that?

Other: Some comments have been made about how the IRCC at the start expected the covid situation to go away within a few months. Fair enough, but only initially. 6 months into the pandemic? 12 months+ into the pandemic? What's the excuse now? Come to think of it, why are paper applications necessary, other than the mere fact of history? In a video oath ceremony, people are just looking at a screen and saying "I swear" and whatever. What's the limitation of numbers, other than some historical aspects of such situations?

Someone here obtained a huge dump of information via an ATIP request. A couple of things are evident from that. One is that even well into the second year of the pandemic, IRCC is making almost no effort to digitize anything; so the IRCC "working from home" are doing very little work, as they must go to offices and look at hard paper to make some decisions. The second, as can be seen from the email exchanges, is that IRCC top brass is basically making up numbers as to their expected performance and then lowering them so that they can say "we met X%" (X a good number, like 85+) of our target.

Finally, the bureaucrats have come with a neat idea: People look at their GCMS notes, and ask "why hasn't X been started even after so long?". Solution: under the new "tracker" system, everything that has not even been started is suddenly "in progress"! I know this because the GCMS notes I got today still shows the same things as not-started that had were not-started a couple of months ago (even after a couple of years). But according to the fancy tracker system information from a week ago, it's all in-progress! Talk about trying to fool the sheeple ...

 

[MrChazz]

Today's news has some important information from the relevant "watchdog":

Watchdog says immigration applicants need easier access to info on their files (msn.com)

Interesting development. The full report, urging more transparency, is suddenly no longer available on the commissioner's website: Access at issue: Challenging the status quo (oic-ci.gc.ca) (See link at the bottom.)

Is the IRCC fighting back? Don't want the sheeple to see too much incompetence? Hmmm. Let's see what gets "cleaned up" when the report re-appears.

 

[Das67]

Interesting development. The full report, urging more transparency, is suddenly no longer available on the commissioner's website: Access at issue: Challenging the status quo (oic-ci.gc.ca) (See link at the bottom.)

Is the IRCC fighting back? Don't want the sheeple to see too much incompetence? Hmmm. Let's see what gets "cleaned up" when the report re-appears.

Very interesting indeed....

 

[umanitoba]

Here is the IRCC auto reply to ATIP nites tracking. More than 30 days and even I haven’t received an extension. Covid is not a good excuse anymore while everyone adapted to remote working. Only field staff and workers are working in the field or offices. Also, if there are significant delays in everything they must stop accepting new applications until the mess they have created which even was there before covid to be cleared. What does it mean significant delays???? The very first thing people learn in professional writing is to avoid using vague language!! Privacy act and Access to information is the law and they must provide it when clearly they cannot process applications and provide vague status updates. While we are waiting, I see they speed up PR applications and people get their pr in 2-3 months!!!

IRCC currently has reduced operational capacity due to exceptional measures to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). As a result, there will be significant delays in responding to all requests under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, as well as any emails sent to this email address, during this period.

 

[umanitoba]

Based on these responses and lack of clarity, the only option is FC.

 

[engray]

Here is the IRCC auto reply to ATIP nites tracking. More than 30 days and even I haven’t received an extension. Covid is not a good excuse anymore while everyone adapted to remote working. Only field staff and workers are working in the field or offices. Also, if there are significant delays in everything they must stop accepting new applications until the mess they have created which even was there before covid to be cleared. What does it mean significant delays???? The very first thing people learn in professional writing is to avoid using vague language!! Privacy act and Access to information is the law and they must provide it when clearly they cannot process applications and provide vague status updates. While we are waiting, I see they speed up PR applications and people get their pr in 2-3 months!!!

IRCC currently has reduced operational capacity due to exceptional measures to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). As a result, there will be significant delays in responding to all requests under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, as well as any emails sent to this email address, during this period.

You could and should file a complaint https://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/en/submitting-complaint

 

[prash42]

Thanks for sharing. Seems that this link is working OIC_IRCC_Special_Report_2021_0.pdf (oic-ci.gc.ca)

It's clear that access to information request numbers and complaint statistics get tracked. It's great that people affected by IRCC's lethargy aren't settling for outdated maxims like "bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does" and "the law is gospel". Change happens by publicly calling out bureaucratic sloth, and outdated laws and procedures.

Does anybody know if federal employees' collective bargaining agreements are available under access to information? Strong hunch that has a role in IRCC's weak roll-out of automation / digitization efforts. I might be completely wrong of course, but would love to know.

Interesting development. The full report, urging more transparency, is suddenly no longer available on the commissioner's website: Access at issue: Challenging the status quo (oic-ci.gc.ca) (See link at the bottom.)

Is the IRCC fighting back? Don't want the sheeple to see too much incompetence? Hmmm. Let's see what gets "cleaned up" when the report re-appears.

 

[dpenabill]

In a free-for-all topic like this it can be difficult to distinguish sincere queries, and genuine efforts to engage in productive discourse dealing with particular issues, from what are largely expressions of dissatisfaction and complaining about IRCC well beyond the scope of the topic itself. This is not to offhandedly dismiss the complaining, even that which tends to devolve into rants, since after all this forum is indeed an appropriate venue for sharing criticisms, including some venting (within civil behavior limits).

However, for those actually interested in seriously discussing some of the issues raised by comments here, there are other threads in this forum where those issues are addressed in more focused, on-topic discussions and explanations.

For example, in regards to @harirajmohan's observations about how IRCC will ask for and examine passport pages, health care summary information, children's school records, and address and employment history records, from some applicants, that is really about the nature and scope of RQ-related non-routine processing (not about how to get IRCC back to normalcy in processing routine applications in the wake of Covid-19). This subject is discussed at-length and in-depth in a number of topics here, including those in which I cite and link official Federal Court decisions discussing such elements and their relevance in actual cases. No special expertise in cartography necessary to map the relevance of these things if and when IRCC is taking a closer look to verify the applicant's claims about actual physical presence. After all, for example, evidence about where an applicant was living and working is obviously directly relevant to the person's whereabouts during that period of time. This information is considered so relevant, in fact, that all adult applicants are required to provide this information in the citizenship application itself with NO gaps. Again, there is more in-depth discussion of this and other proof of actual physical presence elements in other topics.

For another example, there is the statement by @MrChazz ". . . the use of 'non-routine' to justify apparent laziness, as in 'that means we may take as long as we like'." Here too there are other topics where the meaning, use, and significance of the label "non-routine" is addressed and explained in-depth. I will not belabor the subject here and just note this characterization is simply not in the ballpark. As I noted recently in one of those other topics, the what-is-non-routine? question does not warrant much attention. It is a label that means virtually nothing. It is merely descriptive, distinguishing applications which have involved some additional procedure or process. What substantively matters is entirely about what that additional procedure or process entails. For full explanation see https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/routine-non-routine.732568/

Some other comments by @MrChazz appear to challenge the proposition that if IRCC officials (processing agents or Citizenship Officers) perceive the applicant is in pursuit of a passport of convenience there is a very significant risk that can have a negative influence on the processing of the application. I will address this in a separate post, but for now, here, will reiterate what I previously said:

. . . whatever view one has about whether this is how it should be or not, it would be utterly foolish to not recognize the potential impact of being perceived to be applying for Canadian citizenship in pursuit of a 'passport of convenience.'​

​

At the least, the very least, there is a very significant RISK that IRCC personal will have concerns about the credibility of applicants perceived to be pursuing a "passport of convenience." . . . it is a safe bet that when processing agents or citizenship officers perceive the applicant has a motive to cheat, such as when they see an applicant who appears to be seeking a "passport of convenience," the level of scrutiny and risk of non-routine processing goes up.​

Notwithstanding the claim by @MrChazz that a "high court" has ruled this is not allowed, there is no Canadian high court ruling that says IRCC officials cannot consider such motives in the process of assessing applicants seeking a grant of Canadian citizenship. Again, I will address this further in a separate post.

Based on these responses and lack of clarity, the only option is FC.

This comment references the current situation regarding the massive volume of ATI and ATIP applications besieging IRCC these days, and IRCC's response.

The report referenced and linked above amply illustrates that the biggest cause for the unprecedented onslaught of information access requests, overwhelming the agency, has been due to requests by attorneys for Foreign Nationals seeking information about the status of immigration applications. However, it is also readily apparent that a large number of citizenship applicants have been making excessive, unnecessary ATIP requests as well. The copy of GCMS records these requests generate are generally not much informative and not of much use. It is true that a significant aspect of the problem is how cryptic these records are. But for the most part (with some exceptions), most of these requests do not accomplish anything more than making applicants feel they are doing something . . . and that is largely a false sense.

In any event, at this juncture, in the current situation, applications for mandamus are likely to be a big waste of effort and money.

 

[dpenabill]

Notwithstanding the claim by @MrChazz that a "high court" has ruled consideration of an applicant's motive in regards to pursuing a passport of convenience is not allowed, there is no Canadian high court ruling that says IRCC officials cannot consider such motives in the process of assessing applicants seeking a grant of Canadian citizenship.

The Longer Observations:

But you need to look at significant legal rulings in such matters. One of those involved a case where a person was denied citizenship because the view was that he was spending a lot of time abroad and merely wanted a "passport of convenience". The ruling by the high court was that the immigration officer's views were totally irrelevant in such a subjective manner; that what mattered was whether or not the person had satisfied the requirements as laid down. The effect of that ruling was major, and IRCC operations manuals etc. direct officers to keep their personal, subjective view out of such matters. It may well happen, but that would be a serious breach of both the law and IRCC directives.

The vast majority of applicants do not need to do much if any research beyond the information provided by IRCC, since reading and following the instructions works for most. And, after all, most applicants for Canadian citizenship are very much pursuing becoming Canadian citizens in fact, not just seeking a more versatile travel document. That is, most applicants are seeking citizenship consistent with the "whole purpose of permanent residency and Canadian citizenship," as Federal Court justice Annis has described it, with the "intention" of "living and remaining in the country." (To be clear, the lack of such intent is not a stand alone ground for which a citizenship application can be denied; but any claim this cannot and will not be a factor potentially influencing how things go is simply wrong.)

That said, I agree that those of us who make an effort to unravel the more complex or thorny aspects of the process should make the effort to do the homework, including looking at official sources like judicial decisions. Note, however, you would be hard pressed to find any forum participant who has quoted, cited, and linked anywhere near as many judicial decisions here as I have. Until the last year (I've slipped a bit lately), for the previous decade I read each and every published Canadian court decision dealing with grant citizenship, every published Federal Court decision dealing with PR Residency Obligation issues, and regularly perused scores of related IAD decisions. Assuming the case you referenced is real (I have my doubts), I have undoubtedly read, and probably cited and linked that case (would be helpful to have at least a citation if not a link).

Based on your description I am not certain, however, precisely which case that is, again if there is such a case. There are only a very few "high court" decisions regarding applications for a grant of naturalized citizenship . . . since, until relatively recently, for almost all legal issues involving applications for a grant of naturalized citizenship there was no right of appeal past the Federal Court, including no process for seeking leave to obtain review from any court higher than the Federal Court, which is the lower rung (not at all a "high court"), so low that Federal Court decisions in grant citizenship cases are NOT binding in any other case (this was a big problem for many years during which different Federal Court justices were making decisions starkly different from one another, some in direct conflict, and there was no procedure for taking the conflicting rulings to the Federal Court of Appeal to resolve what the law really was or requires . . . now there is a mechanism for having questions certified for further review, subject to the discretion of the Federal Court of Appeal).

Moreover, to my knowledge (I have looked, and I know how to look), there are NO Canadian higher court decisions in which the term "passport of convenience," which you put in quotes as if taken from the case, even appears, let alone in the context you describe. Indeed, the term appears in only seven decisions by the Federal Court (again, not a "high" court) in the last twenty years, only ONE of which is a grant of naturalized citizenship case, from nearly two decades ago, and which does not otherwise come close to the ruling you describe. And that decision, like any other Federal Court decision, did not establish any binding precedent let alone a major one (for that case see Alouache 2003 FCT 858 https://canlii.ca/t/1hw80 )

The almost universal absence of reference to terms like "passport of convenience" in Federal Court decisions for grant citizenship cases is illuminating and underscores the main reason I suspect that EITHER the case you purport to reference, itself, does not exist, OR you have mischaracterized the case in regards to the ruling, its interpretation, and its application. In particular, at best your description glosses over the profound difference between what an agency decision-maker may consider as grounds for a decision versus what "matters" a decision-maker may consider in conducting inquiries or investigations, and what "matters" a decision-maker may consider in weighing evidence for or against the existence of a relevant fact. For example, I have not seen the slightest hint that any Canadian court has imposed restrictions of the sort you describe on IRCC officials in making decisions about when, who, or why an applicant is subject to a Residence Questionnaire or a more thorough investigation otherwise into the applicant's qualifications, including actual physical presence.

For example, it is correct that a citizenship officer cannot deny a grant of citizenship on the grounds that the applicant has been living abroad after applying, and similarly cannot rule against the applicant because the officer apprehends the applicant is seeking a passport of convenience. But these can be what triggers an official's decision to initiate the residence/presence case procedure, including full-blown RQ, including engaging in a thorough investigation of the applicant. And they can be matters influencing the officer's assessment of the applicant's credibility.

Which seems to be what you are challenging.

In contrast, for those potentially affected by how IRCC might deal with the application if the applicant has relocated abroad, they might want to peruse the judicial decisions regarding the citizenship application made by Nariman Younis, and in particular focus on the obvious influence moving abroad had, as illuminated in
the 2019 Federal Court decision by Justice Annis, upheld by a very recent Federal Court of Appeal decision. For reference, there are two Federal Court decisions and one Federal Court of Appeal decisions in this case:

-- Younis v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2021 FCA 49, https://canlii.ca/t/jdns1​

-- Younis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 291 https://canlii.ca/t/hz8g7​

-- Younis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 209 https://canlii.ca/t/hqlqh​

The one that best illustrates the extent to which moving abroad before taking the oath looms large in the minds of those making grant citizenship application decisions is, as I mentioned, the 2019 FC decision by Justice Annis. See, for example, paragraph 37:

The Applicant’s interpretation, if adopted, would skew the whole purpose of permanent residency and Canadian citizenship. Its objective in inviting non-residents to become permanent residents, and thereafter, Canadian citizens is with the intention that applicants seek to contribute to their own well-being and that of Canada by living and remaining in the country.​

Frankly, Justice Annis was pushing the envelope, and the lawyer for Younis clearly was convinced he had crossed the line, and thus even without a having a certified question she pursued an appeal, albeit without success, to the Federal Court of Appeal.

In the latter regard, some may find the discussion at paragraph 43 in the Federal Court of Appeal decision instructive, where that court affirms the relevance of the applicant's intentions . . . note the parsing of language used by both the Citizenship Judge and Justice Annis, and in some respects twisting what they said, in order to uphold the validity of their respective decisions, despite how obvious it is that moving abroad for the indefinite future, with no plan to return to live in Canada, was the key motivating factor for both the Citizenship Judge and Justice Annis.

It should be noted that case involved an earlier version of the Citizenship Act which had a residency rather than a physical presence requirement (albeit some Citizenship Judges and Federal Court decisions interpreted that law to also impose a physical presence requirement; as I mentioned, there were unresolved conflicts in what the law actually was).

Overall, the take-away, and there should be no doubt about this, is that if and when an applicant for a grant of citizenship is perceived to be pursuing Canadian citizenship contrary to its purpose (to settle and live in Canada permanently), that can POTENTIALLY have a significant negative influence on how things go processing the application. And even a "high court" like the Federal Court of Appeals is, apparently, inclined to let that have even more influence than many would say the law technically allows.