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

[piotrqc]

Thanks for such detailed response much appreciated . So the conclusion is that I have to wait.

If you want to choose passivity,and extend your wait for several more years, yes. You have to wait.

Otherwise, we must try to jostle IRCC by all legitimate and possible means of pressure to advance our cause.

Alerting our federal deputies, alerting the press, organizing themselves into a lobby to program collective actions can have a more favorable outcome for us. All this is already being done gradually ...

NB: The person who 'advised' you is a notorious anti-immigrationist, and has never spared no efforts to discourage people in this thread ... And this since the very first posts ... look at the first pages here ... You will be amazed by his vehemence and his relentlessness to discourage people.

 

[luvtrump]

If you want to choose passivity,and extend your wait for several more years, yes. You have to wait.

Otherwise, we must try to jostle IRCC by all legitimate and possible means of pressure to advance our cause.

Alerting our federal deputies, alerting the press, organizing themselves into a lobby to program collective actions can have a more favorable outcome for us. All this is already being done gradually ...

NB: The person who 'advised' you is a notorious anti-immigrationist, and has never spared no efforts to discourage people in this thread ... And this since the very first posts ... look at the first pages here ... You will be amazed by his vehemence and his relentlessness to discourage people.

Passivity is the only option.
Alerting our federal deputies, alerting the press, organizing themselves into a lobby to program collective actions can have a more favorable outcome for us. All this is being already done
?????
Where ???? Ircc has even stopped replying to case specific enquiries. Everyone is getting standard bot reply . It's like a slap on the face. When you call them they say wait . The govt or so called federal agencies are at ircc's mercy. People are hopeless. Not even being heard . All the press does is post an article in a month and that's it. Everyday and every hour is a torture. The only way to make IRCC work is to get them hammered by Supreme Court of Canada. If this is not going to happen then wait is the only option. Nothing can jostle IrCc I can bet on that.

 

[VictorCA]

Probably not. But, who knows?

Note, at the least, when the new application is opened at CPC-Sydney the official screening the application will immediately recognize that there is either an application already in process, or if that application has been withdrawn that there was an application and that it has been withdrawn. These days we do not know the precise criteria which can result in RQ-related non-routine processing, but in the past the fact there was a previous application was one of the more direct factors leading to RQ-related processing. That noted, depending on the individual's specific history and situation, what happens in individual cases varies extensively; how it actually goes for any particular individual can vary widely compared to how it goes for other applicants, even those who appear to be in very comparable situations.

Which in turn leads to . . . Any discussion about the processing timeline should clearly distinguish between statistical information versus any particular individual's processing timeline. Trends and probabilities are one thing. What happens in a specific person's case is specific to that individual, and that is subject to way too many variables, too many details, not to mention a range of conditionals and contingencies, for anyone here to in any way reliably forecast the prospective timeline for any specific person . . . that is, other than describing the trends and probabilities generally.

The latter drags this back to the backlog problem. As I previously noted, since dealing with backlogged cases is outside the routine processing stream in almost any bureaucratic context, bureaucracies in general typically have problems addressing and resolving backlogs. BUT CIC/IRCC has, in particular, an especially dismal history in this regard.

The history of how Canada handled skilled worker PR applications a decade ago is perhaps the most salient, egregious, and eventually unfair example . . . in a fashion scores of applicants with long-term pending applications suddenly had their applications, in effect, thrown out in order to eliminate the backlog. (Note, early on in this particular topic, some of the blatant fearmongering here claimed something similar was likely to happen to citizenship applicants; for many reasons that was just raw and unfounded fearmongering, and is not worth revisiting. I mention the skilled worker situation as an example of just how badly CIC/IRCC tends to deal with backlogs, not as an example about what can happen for citizenship applicants.)

Another historical example more specific to citizenship applications was also around a decade ago. There was a huge backlog of applications due to draconian measures implemented by the Harper government's effort to crack down on fraud, which was more or less resolved by the time I applied, so that processing new applications was back on track, while the backlogged applications remained bogged down. The result was that I, and many others who applied around the same time as I did, were taking the oath long before scores who had applied two, three, and some even four years before us.

A sidebar: a big difference between the situation now and the situation then, was that for many of us the direction the Harper government was headed was obvious; their rhetoric about the extent to which they perceived widespread fraud and abuses, combined with the legislation being tabled, and the steadily increasing processing timeline (back then the government was more transparent -- there were regular publicly disclosed reports showing how long it took to process 20% of applications and 50% of applications, in addition to the report for 80%, so we could get a far more detailed sense of how long processing was taking). We could see what was happening. Thus, I actually waited MORE than an EXTRA YEAR to make my application based in significant part on that (in conjunction with the Harper era draconian triage criteria for imposing RQ, both part of the same thing). THE DIFFERENCE this time around is no one saw the Covid-19 global pandemic coming. No one eligible to apply in 2019 could have reasonably anticipated that those applications would run into a big wall in March of 2020 and get buried in a backlog. Those of you who applied in 2019 and were still short of the finish line in February 2020 were, in effect, blindsided by the gods.​

A CAVEAT:

The Star is not always an entirely reliable source. And I have not otherwise seen the numbers the Star reports. As I have noted, those numbers tend to say, relative to the primary objective for this thread, to push IRCC to resume processing citizenship applications toward achieving a more or less normal timeline, that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. But I do not mean to be staging a George Bush aircraft carrier style celebration. Especially since addressing the backlogged applications is still an outstanding concern.

But it sure is encouraging news. How encouraging depends on how consistently IRCC is progressing with both new and backlogged applications.

The other caveat, the omnipresent caveat, is that even in the best of times many find citizenship application processing dreadfully and painfully slow. Many individuals will still be in WAIT mode, and many of these applicants will be in WAIT mode for a long while. And anyone encountering non-routine processing faces the prospect of an especially slow process . . . as badly as IRCC is in dealing with a backlog, it is even worse when dealing with non-routine applications during such times.

This RQ thing sounds dreadful......can it happen after you take the test or is it more of a pre-AOR thing?

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

This RQ thing sounds dreadful......can it happen after you take the rest or is it more of a pre-AOR thing?

Well, pretty much nothing happens before AOR.

RQs can happen anytime AFTER AOR and before "Decision Made".

 

[VictorCA]

Well, pretty much nothing happens before AOR.

RQs can happen anytime AFTER AOR but before "Decision Made".

Oh no, there is one thing I think I messed up in my application....I listed two visitor visas as Travel Documents because, at the time, I thought visitor visas were Travel Documents (since they are documents I used to travel...). I did mention in the comments that they were tourist/visitor visas, not for immigration. Is it possible this may cause me to get an RQ?

 

[dpenabill]

This RQ thing sounds dreadful......can it happen after you take the test or is it more of a pre-AOR thing?

Oh no, there is one thing I think I messed up in my application....I listed two visitor visas as Travel Documents because, at the time, I thought visitor visas were Travel Documents (since they are documents I used to travel...). I did mention in the comments that they were tourist/visitor visas, not for immigration. Is it possible this may cause me to get an RQ?

These days there are multiple versions of RQ-related non-routine processing, which can range from a request for a few documents (even just one document) and only have a moderate slowing impact, to the full blown version (CIT 0171) which is indeed extensively intrusive and, moreover, signals that IRCC has an elevated concern and thus a much longer timeline can be anticipated. So RQ is not necessarily dreadful . . . except for those who IRCC identifies as a real presence-case.

For several years now, the vast majority of reports indicate RQ being issued at or following the knowledge of Canada testing. It can, however, be issued before that, and as @rajkamalmohanram noted, at any time prior to actually taking the oath. Pre-test RQ was more common during the Harper years. However, under the Liberal government, a few years ago there was a period of time in which a type of RQ was being sent to some applicants by CPC-Sydney (before the application was referred to a local office) as part of a quality assurance program; this was supposedly random, and while sent by CPC-Sydney the applicant was typically directed to send the response to the respective local office.

Forecasting who will get RQ and why is big subject, and that subject, RQ and RQ-related issues (like what might increase the risk of RQ), is largely off-topic in this thread. There are numerous other topics here about RQ. And anyone with questions can, of course, start a topic to ask the question and solicit responses about it in particular. In general IRCC is not testing applicants about how well they know and understand particular immigration system rules and concepts, so if you made an error in describing a visa or such, that should be no big deal and not a cause for issuing RQ.

Passivity is the only option.
Alerting our federal deputies, alerting the press, organizing themselves into a lobby to program collective actions can have a more favorable outcome for us. All this is being already done
?????
Where ???? Ircc has even stopped replying to case specific enquiries. Everyone is getting standard bot reply . It's like a slap on the face. When you call them they say wait . The govt or so called federal agencies are at ircc's mercy. People are hopeless. Not even being heard . All the press does is post an article in a month and that's it. Everyday and every hour is a torture. The only way to make IRCC work is to get them hammered by Supreme Court of Canada. If this is not going to happen then wait is the only option. Nothing can jostle IrCc I can bet on that.

No need to be passive, even if a lot of waiting is in the cards.

Action can be addressed to an individual's application, or as referenced, continued action to encourage IRCC to more aggressively deal with the backlogged applications.

Obviously what is appropriate and potentially effective in regards to an individual application depends a lot on the individual application. Repeatedly making inquiries, webform, telephone help centre, or ATIP requests, is generally NOT helpful. But there are times when one of these is something an applicant should do. Very hard to generalize. For the vast majority of qualified applicants with minimal issues in their case, there should be no reason to succumb to fearmongering exaggerations about having to wait "several more years." Those with significant non-routine issues, depending on the particulars, might be looking at a rather long wait still, but for them rattling-the-bars is not likely to change much. Basically, applicants stuck in the backlog should continue to be proactive, but what that means precisely depends on the individual and on how much time and effort they are willing to invest.

Leading to more generalized efforts to encourage IRCC to do a better job and more quickly process backlogged applications. Probably not a good idea to look-foolish advocating IRCC resume a regular paced testing schedule since, it appears (subject to caveat previously expressed), that is being done. So going forward the efforts to get IRCC to improve processing the backlog probably needs to be more targeted and refined. Contrary to the fearmongering, not engaging in advocacy is not likely to mean having to wait "several more years," but like any activist movement, it helps if those who can do what they can . . . albeit, also just like in any activist movement, it is important to focus on PRODUCTIVE advocacy and avoid what is counter-productive.

Even if the Star article numbers are not an entirely accurate representation of what is happening, they at least signal a lot of progress from a year ago. IRCC can be slow. IRCC can be excruciatingly slow. But there is no reason to fear that backlogged citizenship applications will be forgotten. Still does not hurt to remind public officials that IRCC should focus some attention and effort on completing the process for those with applications pending now for more than a year.

 

[canvisa13]

These days there are multiple versions of RQ-related non-routine processing, which can range from a request for a few documents (even just one document) and only have a moderate slowing impact, to the full blown version (CIT 0171) which is indeed extensively intrusive and, moreover, signals that IRCC has an elevated concern and thus a much longer timeline can be anticipated. So RQ is not necessarily dreadful . . . except for those who IRCC identifies as a real presence-case.

For several years now, the vast majority of reports indicate RQ being issued at or following the knowledge of Canada testing. It can, however, be issued before that, and as @rajkamalmohanram noted, at any time prior to actually taking the oath. Pre-test RQ was more common during the Harper years. However, under the Liberal government, a few years ago there was a period of time in which a type of RQ was being sent to some applicants by CPC-Sydney (before the application was referred to a local office) as part of a quality assurance program; this was supposedly random, and while sent by CPC-Sydney the applicant was typically directed to send the response to the respective local office.

Forecasting who will get RQ and why is big subject, and that subject, RQ and RQ-related issues (like what might increase the risk of RQ), is largely off-topic in this thread. There are numerous other topics here about RQ. And anyone with questions can, of course, start a topic to ask the question and solicit responses about it in particular. In general IRCC is not testing applicants about how well they know and understand particular immigration system rules and concepts, so if you made an error in describing a visa or such, that should be no big deal and not a cause for issuing RQ.




No need to be passive, even if a lot of waiting is in the cards.

Action can be addressed to an individual's application, or as referenced, continued action to encourage IRCC to more aggressively deal with the backlogged applications.

Obviously what is appropriate and potentially effective in regards to an individual application depends a lot on the individual application. Repeatedly making inquiries, webform, telephone help centre, or ATIP requests, is generally NOT helpful. But there are times when one of these is something an applicant should do. Very hard to generalize. For the vast majority of qualified applicants with minimal issues in their case, there should be no reason to succumb to fearmongering exaggerations about having to wait "several more years." Those with significant non-routine issues, depending on the particulars, might be looking at a rather long wait still, but for them rattling-the-bars is not likely to change much. Basically, applicants stuck in the backlog should continue to be proactive, but what that means precisely depends on the individual and on how much time and effort they are willing to invest.

Leading to more generalized efforts to encourage IRCC to do a better job and more quickly process backlogged applications. Probably not a good idea to look-foolish advocating IRCC resume a regular paced testing schedule since, it appears (subject to caveat previously expressed), that is being done. So going forward the efforts to get IRCC to improve processing the backlog probably needs to be more targeted and refined. Contrary to the fearmongering, not engaging in advocacy is not likely to mean having to wait "several more years," but like any activist movement, it helps if those who can do what they can . . . albeit, also just like in any activist movement, it is important to focus on PRODUCTIVE advocacy and avoid what is counter-productive.

Even if the Star article numbers are not an entirely accurate representation of what is happening, they at least signal a lot of progress from a year ago. IRCC can be slow. IRCC can be excruciatingly slow. But there is no reason to fear that backlogged citizenship applications will be forgotten. Still does not hurt to remind public officials that IRCC should focus some attention and effort on completing the process for those with applications pending now for more than a year.

Do you think, I should re-apply again (second application) just to make sure they pick up my new application, instead of waiting for backlog to be resolved? If all they care is about new applications, then it makes sense to re-apply again instead of worrying about old application, right?

And also, if they don't want to work on backlog and work only on new applications to show that they are processing efficiently and fast, then at least they should tell everyone to re-apply again. That will save lots of headache and pain, right?

 

[Flandernss]

Since that article reports more than 60k were scheduled to take the oath in the first four months of 2021, and a comparable number of knowledge of Canada tests scheduled, it appears that IRCC is at least approaching par in processing citizenship applications. Probably time to retire the campaign to push IRCC to resume normal processing, since, after all, however and whatever motivated the government, it appears MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

In fact, those numbers suggest that IRCC was approaching par, processing applications to completion at a rate comparable to the intake of new applications, sometime last year. I am impressed. Better job done than I was anticipating.

Dealing with the backlogged applications is still an issue, but in that regard, as bureaucracies in general are wont to do, and as CIC/IRCC has historically done, that tends to go slow, typically excruciatingly slow. Not likely this is about giving priority to more recent applications; frankly the over-the-top cynicism claiming there is a deliberate scheme to manipulate the numbers is ludicrous and in the range of American-style conspiracy theories. It is almost certainly about the way bureaucracies work, like assembly lines, once the normal flow has been re-established the work on the line progresses accordingly . . . and thus the apparent progress being made with the more recently filed applications actually reinforces the likelihood that a more or less normal processing flow has indeed been re-established. Meanwhile a separate, not in the normal flow process is necessary to deal with the work that had been in effect stockpiled, backlogged. And as noted, not only is this typically a problem, typically slow, for any bureaucracy, historically CIC/IRCC has had an especially poor track record in dealing with backlogs.

But that is a finite problem and as applications in the backlog are resolved, a shrinking problem. It is also, however, unfortunately, typically a tenacious if not intransigent problem. But as long as the processing of citizenship applications has resumed a normal flow, processing applications more or less at a rate comparable to incoming new applications, those stuck in the backlog should feel relieved that there is no threat of the timeline ballooning to many years as some of the fearmongering here has proffered.


An Observation Regarding the Hardships Discussed in the Star Article:

The hardship imposed on the individuals discussed in the Star article is real. But as noted elsewhere, as much as a delay in obtaining a Canadian passport imposes hardship on PRs with international travel needs, including those with such needs in their employment, the policies and practices (driven in significant part by the purposes underlying the Canadian immigration system, including its path to citizenship for PRs) are not oriented toward giving this much priority. The path to citizenship is simply not there, not intended, to address or facilitate the international travel needs of immigrants. Maybe it should be. As illustrated in that article, this poses a real hardship for many. So many vehemently urge this should be a more important concern. But so far all signs suggest it is not. This is reflected in the Charter regarding mobility rights, statutory provisions such as those prescribing the PR RO, and extensively in the case law, and as is readily apparent in how IRCC approaches processing citizenship applications.

So, as hard as this aspect of the delay is, it is not likely to have much weight in the government's approach to priorities in dealing with the backlogged citizenship applications. Unless and until a PR actually becomes a citizen, until the oath is taken, a PR's international travel is mostly subject to, dependent on, the passport the PR carries and the rules and laws of other countries. However things should be, this is how it is.

"except for the backlog, which is normal, now everything is back to normal, so we can drop our complaints" hahahahhaha

 

[VictorCA]

These days there are multiple versions of RQ-related non-routine processing, which can range from a request for a few documents (even just one document) and only have a moderate slowing impact, to the full blown version (CIT 0171) which is indeed extensively intrusive and, moreover, signals that IRCC has an elevated concern and thus a much longer timeline can be anticipated. So RQ is not necessarily dreadful . . . except for those who IRCC identifies as a real presence-case.

For several years now, the vast majority of reports indicate RQ being issued at or following the knowledge of Canada testing. It can, however, be issued before that, and as @rajkamalmohanram noted, at any time prior to actually taking the oath. Pre-test RQ was more common during the Harper years. However, under the Liberal government, a few years ago there was a period of time in which a type of RQ was being sent to some applicants by CPC-Sydney (before the application was referred to a local office) as part of a quality assurance program; this was supposedly random, and while sent by CPC-Sydney the applicant was typically directed to send the response to the respective local office.

Forecasting who will get RQ and why is big subject, and that subject, RQ and RQ-related issues (like what might increase the risk of RQ), is largely off-topic in this thread. There are numerous other topics here about RQ. And anyone with questions can, of course, start a topic to ask the question and solicit responses about it in particular. In general IRCC is not testing applicants about how well they know and understand particular immigration system rules and concepts, so if you made an error in describing a visa or such, that should be no big deal and not a cause for issuing RQ.




No need to be passive, even if a lot of waiting is in the cards.

Action can be addressed to an individual's application, or as referenced, continued action to encourage IRCC to more aggressively deal with the backlogged applications.

Obviously what is appropriate and potentially effective in regards to an individual application depends a lot on the individual application. Repeatedly making inquiries, webform, telephone help centre, or ATIP requests, is generally NOT helpful. But there are times when one of these is something an applicant should do. Very hard to generalize. For the vast majority of qualified applicants with minimal issues in their case, there should be no reason to succumb to fearmongering exaggerations about having to wait "several more years." Those with significant non-routine issues, depending on the particulars, might be looking at a rather long wait still, but for them rattling-the-bars is not likely to change much. Basically, applicants stuck in the backlog should continue to be proactive, but what that means precisely depends on the individual and on how much time and effort they are willing to invest.

Leading to more generalized efforts to encourage IRCC to do a better job and more quickly process backlogged applications. Probably not a good idea to look-foolish advocating IRCC resume a regular paced testing schedule since, it appears (subject to caveat previously expressed), that is being done. So going forward the efforts to get IRCC to improve processing the backlog probably needs to be more targeted and refined. Contrary to the fearmongering, not engaging in advocacy is not likely to mean having to wait "several more years," but like any activist movement, it helps if those who can do what they can . . . albeit, also just like in any activist movement, it is important to focus on PRODUCTIVE advocacy and avoid what is counter-productive.

Even if the Star article numbers are not an entirely accurate representation of what is happening, they at least signal a lot of progress from a year ago. IRCC can be slow. IRCC can be excruciatingly slow. But there is no reason to fear that backlogged citizenship applications will be forgotten. Still does not hurt to remind public officials that IRCC should focus some attention and effort on completing the process for those with applications pending now for more than a year.

Thanks very much, this was helpful!

 

[citizenship.enthusiast]

Do you think, I should re-apply again (second application) just to make sure they pick up my new application, instead of waiting for backlog to be resolved? If all they care is about new applications, then it makes sense to re-apply again instead of worrying about old application, right?

And also, if they don't want to work on backlog and work only on new applications to show that they are processing efficiently and fast, then at least they should tell everyone to re-apply again. That will save lots of headache and pain, right?

If you are okay to lose $500, you should apply online but make sure to WITHDRAW your current application as they will NOT process multiple applications for same person.

If you submit multiple applications, they will enter ALL your applications in the system and hold ALL the applications for a comparison to figure out what are the changes that have triggered the applicant to make a new submission. If you include a cover letter, that you are applying again because your previous application is not being processed, they will most likely just return your application.

Here's the IRCC Manual where it clearly says it's the obligation of the agency to avoid duplication.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/admininistration/general-file-processing/procedure-multiple-applications.html

 

[canvisa13]

If you are okay to lose $500, you should apply online but make sure to WITHDRAW your current application as they will NOT process multiple applications for same person.

If you submit multiple applications, they will enter ALL your applications in the system and hold ALL the applications for a comparison to figure out what are the changes that have triggered the applicant to make a new submission. If you include a cover letter, that you are applying again because your previous application is not being processed, they will most likely just return your application.

Here's the IRCC Manual where it clearly says it's the obligation of the agency to avoid duplication.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/admininistration/general-file-processing/procedure-multiple-applications.html

Thanks for the reply. So I have no option, but wait.

 

[luvtrump]

Thanks for the reply. So I have no option, but wait.

Make waiting great again !

 

[citizenship.enthusiast]

Thanks for the reply. So I have no option, but wait.

Depends on your situation. I withdrew my paper application and submitted a new one online. Lost 500 bucks in the process but I had also qualified to be an urgent processing candidate when I reapplied.
Personally, and given IRCC'S history of moving on with issues they can't deal with, I would withdraw and apply online as chances are your application will move faster once they have assigned enough resources for online processing which btw is also the future.
Again, it's my personal opinion so take it with a grain of salt as they could just decide to allocate enough resources to clear paper applications backlog and then move to online.

It's a gamble but I'm happy as my bet paid off. $530 is what you would lose precisely.

 

[luvtrump]

Depends on your situation. I withdrew my paper application and submitted a new one online. Lost 500 bucks in the process but I had also qualified to be an urgent processing candidate when I reapplied.
Personally, and given IRCC'S history of moving on with issues they can't deal with, I would withdraw and apply online as chances are your application will move faster once they have assigned enough resources for online processing which btw is also the future.
Again, it's my personal opinion so take it with a grain of salt as they could just decide to allocate enough resources to clear paper applications backlog and then move to online.

It's a gamble but I'm happy as my bet paid off. $530 is what you would lose precisely.

But in your case I dont think you had any status completed did u ?

 

[citizenship.enthusiast]

But in your case I dont think you had any status completed did u ?

Are you referring to my paper application or online? Everything including Knowledge went to In Progress at once, obviously the oath is not started. But I have already completed my test and my interview is this week. Time elapsed so far is about 2 months give or take.
My paper application was never really picked up. Applied in August/September. It went from TFR-Eligibility at CPC-S to Registry at Calgary IRCC only to sit and collect dust until I withdrew it.