Details of secondary review

[Hjfst7468]

dear members,

My renewal application for PR had been referred for secondary review. Finally, renewed PR card was issued nearly a year later with no additional questions/details asked during secondary review period.
But is there a way to obtain information from IRCC on what triggered secondary review and what was reviewed/ checked? Like, right for information act, etc? What I understood from this forum was, it is not just RO obligation, something could also trigger a secondary review. Interested in knowing what that something could be?

 

[PMM]

Hi

dear members,

My renewal application for PR had been referred for secondary review. Finally, renewed PR card was issued nearly a year later with no additional questions/details asked during secondary review period.
But is there a way to obtain information from IRCC on what triggered secondary review and what was reviewed/ checked? Like, right for information act, etc? What I understood from this forum was, it is not just RO obligation, something could also trigger a secondary review. Interested in knowing what that something could be?

1. Apply for your GCMS notes.

 

[Kikilala]

1. Apply for your GCMS notes.

I had secondary review on my last PR card renewal 5 years ago, didn’t know I could order this GCMS notes. Can I order now to see what happened to my last application? Is the record still there?

 

[dpenabill]

dear members,

My renewal application for PR had been referred for secondary review. Finally, renewed PR card was issued nearly a year later with no additional questions/details asked during secondary review period.
But is there a way to obtain information from IRCC on what triggered secondary review and what was reviewed/ checked? Like, right for information act, etc? What I understood from this forum was, it is not just RO obligation, something could also trigger a secondary review. Interested in knowing what that something could be?

I had secondary review on my last PR card renewal 5 years ago, didn’t know I could order this GCMS notes. Can I order now to see what happened to my last application? Is the record still there?

It is very unlikely a generic request for GCMS notes will reveal much at all, even for a PR card application currently in Secondary Review. Probably nothing that will illuminate what triggered the Secondary Review or otherwise reveal any concerns or issues which were the subject of inquiry or investigation.

That is, the GCMS notes will likely reveal little if any more than the fact of the SR referral itself, which the PR is informed regarding anyway.

A carefully and craftily composed ATIP request for more than just a copy of GCMS records might, but only *might* result in obtaining some substantive information. And that would depend on how well informed, well structured, and well directed the ATIP inquiries are framed. Making this kind of ATIP request requires doing a LOT of HOMEWORK. And even then, what can be obtained regarding Secondary Review is likely to be largely superficial at best. Remember, SR is about INVESTIGATING the PR as to matters related to status, and almost all information about investigating PRs is confidential, not to be shared.

THAT SAID . . .

Foremost, there is a distinction between what triggers the referral to Secondary Review versus what might be the subject of inquiry in conducting the SR.

For example, some concern about compliance with the Residency Obligation might be a triggering factor, but a straight up RO inquiry is not ordinarily the subject of SR. Rather, if IRCC identifies information indicating a CURRENT breach of the RO, that will ordinarily trigger a referral to a local office for a PR Residency Obligation determination. That is different from SR.

While some probable subjects of SR have been discussed at length in many topics here, including by me, to a significant extent what we know is largely the surface issues. Ranging from investigating possible misrepresentation to potential security problems. Again, since SR is largely an investigatory process, what and why is mostly NOT public information, not even information to be shared with the individual affected.

In the mix, it appears that a significant number of SR referrals may simply be cases in which IRCC apprehends the PR is not actually settled in Canada permanently, here ranging from questions as to whether the PR was actually in Canada when the PR card application was made to whether the PR is currently IN Canada.

Not being permanently settled in Canada is NOT grounds for denying a PR card. And despite IRCC asserting that PRs must be IN Canada to be eligible to apply for a new PR card, the fact the PR was not in Canada is NOT grounds for denying a PR card either. But IRCC does not need to have specific grounds for denying a PR card application to decide to refer a PR card to SR for further inquiries and investigation.

We do not know for sure, but it appears that this latter process may be mostly about letting the PR card application sit in a queue for a long enough period that upon further review, many months or even a year after the application was made, it is readily apparent whether or not the PR is in compliance with the RO. We do know, for example, that when IRCC apprehends the PR is living abroad, after applying for a new PR card, that often (not always) the application is referred to SR and IRCC is largely waiting to see what happens when the PR attempts to return to Canada, either in what happens when the PR applies for a PR TD from abroad, or the PR arrives at a PoE and is examined. (PRs with PRC application in SR almost certainly have a flag on their record so that PoE officials will readily recognize this and question the PR accordingly.)

MOREOVER, and rather significantly, it would be very unusual for the individual PR to not already be aware of why IRCC might be making further inquiries or outright investigating the PR. And if the PR OBJECTIVELY, honestly (mostly in terms of being honest with oneself), can perceive of no reason for IRCC to be concerned about the PR's RO compliance, or for IRCC to apprehend the PR has not settled in Canada PERMANENTLY, or for there to be any concern the RO's representations to IRCC or CBSA officials (past or present, but including representations made during PoE examinations) were untruthful, or for there to be criminality/security issues, there is no reason to be even the slightest bit concerned about a referral to SR. Protests to the contrary tend to be rather lacking in credibility.

My impression: I do not know. I have no statistics or internal IRCC memos to back up my impression. But my impression, nonetheless, is that a rather significant portion of the PRC application SR referrals are related to concerns the PR is NOT currently settled and PERMANENTLY living in Canada. Whether the more specific subject of inquiry is about some potential past misrepresentation (such as during a PoE examination asserting to have been in Canada more recently than the PR actually was) or IRCC perceives the likelihood the PR is abroad or will be going abroad for an extended time, in order to see how it goes when the PR attempts a return to Canada. Or some other focus of inquiry. My impression is that the perception the PR is not permanently living in Canada underlies what triggered many of these inquiries.

Some will no doubt cry this is unfair if otherwise there is not overt cause to believe the PR is currently in breach of the RO. After all, the law does not require PRs be permanently settled in Canada.

But the PURPOSE of the law is to allow for PRs permanent residence in Canada. And if and when it appears a PR is not acting consistently with the PURPOSE of the law, that can be a reason to make further inquiry and investigate.

Again, I cannot be sure. But it readily appears that the PR who has more or less obviously settled in Canada, establishing a place of permanent residence in Canada, is less likely to be referred to SR even if that PR applies with little margin over the 730 days minimum to comply with the RO, than the PR whose pattern of travel, residence, and employment indicates he or she has not yet made Canada his or her permanent home. The former is fairly common among the many PRs who struggle to make the move itself, and who may even have been given a break in failing to meet the RO during their first five years but who have, nonetheless, finally settled in Canada and clearly permanently so, making an application for a new PR card not so long after they have been in Canada for almost all of the previous two years. In contrast, an SR referral might be easily anticipated for a different PR with many more days in Canada but who has a different and blatantly less-settled in Canada history.

 

[Hjfst7468]

It is very unlikely a generic request for GCMS notes will reveal much at all, even for a PR card application currently in Secondary Review. Probably nothing that will illuminate what triggered the Secondary Review or otherwise reveal any concerns or issues which were the subject of inquiry or investigation.

That is, the GCMS notes will likely reveal little if any more than the fact of the SR referral itself, which the PR is informed regarding anyway.

A carefully and craftily composed ATIP request for more than just a copy of GCMS records might, but only *might* result in obtaining some substantive information. And that would depend on how well informed, well structured, and well directed the ATIP inquiries are framed. Making this kind of ATIP request requires doing a LOT of HOMEWORK. And even then, what can be obtained regarding Secondary Review is likely to be largely superficial at best. Remember, SR is about INVESTIGATING the PR as to matters related to status, and almost all information about investigating PRs is confidential, not to be shared.

THAT SAID . . .

Foremost, there is a distinction between what triggers the referral to Secondary Review versus what might be the subject of inquiry in conducting the SR.

For example, some concern about compliance with the Residency Obligation might be a triggering factor, but a straight up RO inquiry is not ordinarily the subject of SR. Rather, if IRCC identifies information indicating a CURRENT breach of the RO, that will ordinarily trigger a referral to a local office for a PR Residency Obligation determination. That is different from SR.

While some probable subjects of SR have been discussed at length in many topics here, including by me, to a significant extent what we know is largely the surface issues. Ranging from investigating possible misrepresentation to potential security problems. Again, since SR is largely an investigatory process, what and why is mostly NOT public information, not even information to be shared with the individual affected.

In the mix, it appears that a significant number of SR referrals may simply be cases in which IRCC apprehends the PR is not actually settled in Canada permanently, here ranging from questions as to whether the PR was actually in Canada when the PR card application was made to whether the PR is currently IN Canada.

Not being permanently settled in Canada is NOT grounds for denying a PR card. And despite IRCC asserting that PRs must be IN Canada to be eligible to apply for a new PR card, the fact the PR was not in Canada is NOT grounds for denying a PR card either. But IRCC does not need to have specific grounds for denying a PR card application to decide to refer a PR card to SR for further inquiries and investigation.

We do not know for sure, but it appears that this latter process may be mostly about letting the PR card application sit in a queue for a long enough period that upon further review, many months or even a year after the application was made, it is readily apparent whether or not the PR is in compliance with the RO. We do know, for example, that when IRCC apprehends the PR is living abroad, after applying for a new PR card, that often (not always) the application is referred to SR and IRCC is largely waiting to see what happens when the PR attempts to return to Canada, either in what happens when the PR applies for a PR TD from abroad, or the PR arrives at a PoE and is examined. (PRs with PRC application in SR almost certainly have a flag on their record so that PoE officials will readily recognize this and question the PR accordingly.)

MOREOVER, and rather significantly, it would be very unusual for the individual PR to not already be aware of why IRCC might be making further inquiries or outright investigating the PR. And if the PR OBJECTIVELY, honestly (mostly in terms of being honest with oneself), can perceive of no reason for IRCC to be concerned about the PR's RO compliance, or for IRCC to apprehend the PR has not settled in Canada PERMANENTLY, or for there to be any concern the RO's representations to IRCC or CBSA officials (past or present, but including representations made during PoE examinations) were untruthful, or for there to be criminality/security issues, there is no reason to be even the slightest bit concerned about a referral to SR. Protests to the contrary tend to be rather lacking in credibility.

My impression: I do not know. I have no statistics or internal IRCC memos to back up my impression. But my impression, nonetheless, is that a rather significant portion of the PRC application SR referrals are related to concerns the PR is NOT currently settled and PERMANENTLY living in Canada. Whether the more specific subject of inquiry is about some potential past misrepresentation (such as during a PoE examination asserting to have been in Canada more recently than the PR actually was) or IRCC perceives the likelihood the PR is abroad or will be going abroad for an extended time, in order to see how it goes when the PR attempts a return to Canada. Or some other focus of inquiry. My impression is that the perception the PR is not permanently living in Canada underlies what triggered many of these inquiries.

Some will no doubt cry this is unfair if otherwise there is not overt cause to believe the PR is currently in breach of the RO. After all, the law does not require PRs be permanently settled in Canada.

But the PURPOSE of the law is to allow for PRs permanent residence in Canada. And if and when it appears a PR is not acting consistently with the PURPOSE of the law, that can be a reason to make further inquiry and investigate.

Again, I cannot be sure. But it readily appears that the PR who has more or less obviously settled in Canada, establishing a place of permanent residence in Canada, is less likely to be referred to SR even if that PR applies with little margin over the 730 days minimum to comply with the RO, than the PR whose pattern of travel, residence, and employment indicates he or she has not yet made Canada his or her permanent home. The former is fairly common among the many PRs who struggle to make the move itself, and who may even have been given a break in failing to meet the RO during their first five years but who have, nonetheless, finally settled in Canada and clearly permanently so, making an application for a new PR card not so long after they have been in Canada for almost all of the previous two years. In contrast, an SR referral might be easily anticipated for a different PR with many more days in Canada but who has a different and blatantly less-settled in Canada history.

thank you. I had already obtained ATIP (same as GCMS?) three years after SR of PR card renewal. But it did not have any information on post landing stage. All the information it had was on pre-landing stage. Moreover, it has only 14 Pages. I understand from this forum it normally runs into 30 pages. Are they not sharing full information even when requested?

 

[dpenabill]

thank you. I had already obtained ATIP (same as GCMS?) three years after SR of PR card renewal. But it did not have any information on post landing stage. All the information it had was on pre-landing stage. Moreover, it has only 14 Pages. I understand from this forum it normally runs into 30 pages. Are they not sharing full information even when requested?

As I noted, a lot of information is considered confidential. Almost all information related to investigatory processes is not divulged. Information considered to be investigatory methods or means is explicitly not shared, and this includes any specific individual information which might reveal investigatory methods or means.

And then there is a real lot of information that is simply not in scope of the generic requests. There are many, many databases, lots of silos of information. There is a vast amount of information one government official might be able to access in the course of conducting inquiries, and even more so if conducting a more or less formal investigation.

That is, what government officials MIGHT be able to access about an individual across multiple databases goes well beyond the scope of information in a particular set of records regarding any particular individual. Only the latter, and only the non-confidential portions of the latter, are shared. Unless the individual makes a clear request for information beyond that scope. Which requires a well-crafted customized request.

Takes a lot of homework and, frankly, some real skill, to get beyond the bureaucratic curtains. Successfully making a customized ATIP request is rather difficult (and similarly for customized ATI requests for non-personal information).

As for the usual generic ATIP responses, most are in response to a particular IN PROCESS application.

BUT thirty pages of no news is not worth much more than fifteen pages of no news.

Let's be honest, it is very likely you have at least a very good idea why your PRC application was referred to SR. At least if you are being honest with yourself. Sure, there are probably some exceptions. Few and far between.

And beyond that, what triggered the SR referral is one thing, anyway, and what is actually focused on in the course of the SR (if much of anything) is quite another. Neither to be overtly revealed. (With exceptions. Over the years, for example, there are reports of this or that occasion where IRCC has, by accident it appears, revealed information it does not ordinarily share.)

I am far from sure, but it is definitely my impression that in many SR cases there may not be much done beyond letting the PRC application sit in a queue for a long while. There is, perhaps, a little bit more scrutiny, a bit more care exercised, in reviewing the information when the application is finally addressed and the "SR" is conducted . . . IRCC relying on whether anything has popped up, or there has been an intervening change in circumstances, indicating reason to further investigate or not.

 

[Kikilala]

here ranging from questions as to whether the PR was actually in Canada when the PR card application was made to whether the PR is currently IN Canada.

After reading your informative post, I GUESS this is the reason my last application was referred to SR.

So, does it mean it’s better not to travel after submitted the application, until I’ve got the new card? Even though I travel with a valid PRC and come back before it expired?

 

[dpenabill]

After reading your informative post, I GUESS this is the reason my last application was referred to SR.

So, does it mean it’s better not to travel after submitted the application, until I’ve got the new card? Even though I travel with a valid PRC and come back before it expired?

Travel is no big deal. Not at all.

That noted, what some call "travel" sometimes seems to be more about going abroad for extended stays or even what amounts to residing abroad. Someone recently referred to being abroad for TWO years on a "vacation." While the language is rather pliant, it's not likely to be that flexible. That one does not even approach the "nice try but . . . "

For some PRs, particularly those for whom it is not readily apparent they are BOTH well in compliance with the Residency Obligation AND well-settled PERMANENTLY in Canada, leaving Canada while a PR card application is pending tends to increase the risks of non-routine processing, with SR just being one way in which a PRC application can be subject to non-routine processing.

But for the vast majority, when it comes time to apply for a new PR card, their situation is what it is. There is not much one can do at that stage to reduce the risks of SR or other non-routine processing. That is, the circumstances attendant the date the PRC application is made (signed and submitted) will have the most influence in how it goes.

Some Risk-related observations . . .

-- For sure, a PR should WAIT to be in compliance with the RO by the date of the application.​

​

-- Those who are cutting-it-close (less than 850 to 900 days in Canada within the previous five years -- that is, more time abroad than in Canada), and the closer the more so, are clearly at elevated risk, and waiting longer is not likely to help (unless they wait for, say, another three or more months perhaps . . . the difference between 735 days and 835 days, for example, is likely to be offset by other circumstances, other factors), so they probably should either avoid travel abroad or be sure to travel abroad only for brief stays (weeks at most, not months).​

​

-- Those with a pattern of time in Canada and other circumstances (address and employment history for example, among others) that fails to show a life well-settled in Canada, including currently having an established PERMANENT RESIDENCE in Canada, similarly might want to consider minimizing or totally avoiding travel abroad pending a PRC application.​

Beyond that, the risk factors are far more nebulous. Who will and who will not be referred to SR or subject to other non-routine processing is NOT at all easily forecast. The opposite. All we can discern are some risk factors, some circumstances or history which tends to increase the risk of SR. And sure, cutting-it-close in terms of RO compliance tends to be one of the more obvious "usual suspects" so to say. BUT almost as significantly, and perhaps more so depending on just how close the PR is to a breach of the RO, the PR's general situation can loom large, and the more it appears the PR is well-established PERMANENTLY in Canada, the lower the risk . . . or, the contrary, the less clear it is the PR has an established PERMANENT residence (the location where the PR resides-in-fact) in Canada, the higher the risk.

So it is not so much whether the PR travels abroad after submitting the PR card application, but more about whether IRCC apprehends the PR is likely to be living abroad or after applying for the PR card is likely to return to a residence or job or such abroad.

Note: identifying RISK factors is not enough to forecast who will actually be referred to SR. At best it mostly illuminates what is likely to have triggered the SR referral after it has happened. And its use beyond that is minimal since what triggers the inquiry is not of much importance . . .

. . . well, UNLESS the concern triggering SR is itself grounds for determining the PR is inadmissible. For example, if what triggered the SR was an indication the PR was examined at a PoE and made misrepresentations to CBSA officials about how long she had been in Canada, then sure, that could be the focus of a misrepresentation investigation in SR.

 

[drdenil]

24 minutes ago

• Add bookmark
• #14

Hi,
I had got RC 1 category stamp on my passport when I applied for PRTD. So on that basis I have travelled down to Canada and applied for my PR card renewal. But it has been more than 4 months and I don't have any update yet. It is still under eligibility review. So need expert opinion whether it has gone under Secondary review? Or as it has already been approved on H&C ground it will be processed normally?
Thanks

 

[armoured]

24 minutes ago

• Add bookmark
• #14

Hi,
I had got RC 1 category stamp on my passport when I applied for PRTD. So on that basis I have travelled down to Canada and applied for my PR card renewal. But it has been more than 4 months and I don't have any update yet. It is still under eligibility review. So need expert opinion whether it has gone under Secondary review? Or as it has already been approved on H&C ground it will be processed normally?
Thanks

Hard for anyone to say but these timelines are rough. Going over the four months doesn't tell you much. (As far as I know which on this particular topic is not all that much)

 

[canuck78]

24 minutes ago

• Add bookmark
• #14

Hi,
I had got RC 1 category stamp on my passport when I applied for PRTD. So on that basis I have travelled down to Canada and applied for my PR card renewal. But it has been more than 4 months and I don't have any update yet. It is still under eligibility review. So need expert opinion whether it has gone under Secondary review? Or as it has already been approved on H&C ground it will be processed normally?
Thanks

It should be processed normally. 4 months is not extremely long for getting a new PR card.

 

[MahSh]

24 minutes ago

• Add bookmark
• #14

Hi,
I had got RC 1 category stamp on my passport when I applied for PRTD. So on that basis I have travelled down to Canada and applied for my PR card renewal. But it has been more than 4 months and I don't have any update yet. It is still under eligibility review. So need expert opinion whether it has gone under Secondary review? Or as it has already been approved on H&C ground it will be processed normally?
Thanks

update on your pr renewal?