Do they still work on security clearance after decision made?
- Thread starter Dogdogdog
- Start date
Hey yes. From observations so far even after decision made they work on some thing called prohibitions. If you look at Qs.8 in citizenship application from they ask you to declare prohibitions like
a) if you are on parole?
b) If you have committed offence
etc
Two main checks you need to pass during citizenship process are
1) Security
2) Probibitions
Some people reported that security check comes first then prohibitions. Some people reported that even after decision made they are stuck at prohibitions. In my humble opinion prohibitions are more or less like a security.
From w
I believe that between test and decision made there is a window where they finalize the security and prohibition checks, so some people write their tests and then have to wait quite a while before decision is made.
Otherwise, it makes no sense: either a decision is made or not.
I am not aware of a case where it said "decision made" and then suddenly it changes and one does not get an oath invite.
Please explain where you got this information from.
Where to you deduct this from? My understanding is that after decision made the security and prohibition process is finalized?
I believe that between test and decision made there is a window where they finalize the security and prohibition checks, so some people write their tests and then have to wait quite a while before decision is made.
Otherwise, it makes no sense: either a decision is made or not.
I am not aware of a case where it said "decision made" and then suddenly it changes and one does not get an oath invite.
Please explain where you got this information from.
I go with this opinion for general cases ,, however there are some cases CIC changed their status from DM back into IP ,, but I am quite sure that after DM ,, everything supposed to be completed
Decision to approve or grant citizenship is always contingent until the oath is actually taken.
At the least, with some exceptions (such as for same or next day oath scheduling) there will be another GCMS clearance-check between when the decision is made and the oath ceremony takes place, which includes a criminal name-records check; moreover, applicants are usually required to verify, in writing, no prohibitions during this time, typically by submitting a signed form attendant the oath ceremony check-in.
As I noted, the Decision-made is contingent. And it really cannot work any other way since the applicant (a "citizenship candidate" once the approval decision is made) must continue to meet the qualifications right up to taking the oath (this is specifically mandated by statute), AND actually taking the oath is a formal requirement as well (with some narrow exceptions), so the applicant cannot meet all the requirements until the oath is actually taken.
That noted, as simple as the procedures are, as bureaucratic procedures can tend to go, there is a lot going on under-the-hood, so to say.
Yep. But again, there is a lot going on under-the-hood, so to say, and it can get a little complicated. This said, while some applicants have been approved and scheduled for the oath, but then not allowed to take the oath and subsequently subject to this or that non-routine processing, including some getting RQ at that late stage, this appears to be rare and perhaps very rare (rare enough that some instances of this have gotten media coverage).
Decision-making overview:
A general outline of the process is described in the instruction guide and in general PDIs (Program Delivery Instructions), for which see, respectively:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp#CIT0002E8 (see "what happens next" in the instruction guide)
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/admin/decision/roles.asp (PDI "Citizenship: Decision-making procedures")
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/admin/decision/justification.asp (Citizenship: Justifying the decision)
For just a sample of possible tangents in the processing, see PDIs like:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/admin/decision/without.asp (Decision-making without the personal appearance of citizenship applicants)
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/admin/decision/interviews.asp (Citizenship: Interviewing adult applicants)
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/admin/decision/judge.asp (Referring applications to a citizenship judge)
However, those sources only provide a general outline, which is complicated enough but in many respects superficial, and to an extent also somewhat cryptic. For example, there are various references to the "Citizenship Application Record of Decision Card" (CIT 0065). This document appears to be among those considered confidential. It obviously is the document which shows what decisions have been made, when, and probably to some extent why. We do not know what is in this form.
Among other confidential documents which play a huge role in processing citizenship applications, there is the FRC, the File Requirements Checklist (or whatever name its current version has) and, for non-routine cases referred to a Citizenship Judge, the FPAT, the File Preparation and Analysis Template (or, again, whatever the current version of the referral to a CJ is named).
We have a copy of the 2012 version of the FRC (which appears to have been accidently disclosed to a client who then, in turn, shared it on the Internet), which provides a great deal of information relative to which a lot of ATI requests have resulted in the disclosure of internal memos and such illuminating many (but way less than all) aspects of how this was employed. In conjunction with prior Operational Manuals, Operational Bulletins, and including the big one, OB-407 (not publicly posted but various redacted versions have been obtained through ATI applications and are available on the Internet).
Thus, with more than a little concerted effort, including ongoing research accessing many sources, there is a lot we know but a lot we do not know.
Without revisiting all that has been previously and extensively discussed in this forum, and to a larger extent in at least one other forum, about the process going on under-the-hood, so to say, for now I will offer this:
There are three clearances:
-- GCMS
-- RCMP
-- CSIS
The RCMP and CSIS clearances are, of course, done by the RCMP and CSIS respectively, and are also respectively criminal and security checks, but not exclusively so. IRCC in Sydney makes a referral to these respective organizations for the clearance. This is done contemporaneous with opening the application file. The respective organization submits, when it is done, the clearance to the local office (I suspect the process is actually electronic but am not sure, so it probably goes to certain fields in the GCMS, fields which are NOT included in a report-copy generated to give clients in response to ATIP requests).
Note too that the RCMP clearance, done by the RCMP, is more extensive and probing than a name-records check (at the least, for example, screening against records of persons suspected of crimes even if not charged). Again, the GCMS clearance encompasses a records-name check either into the RCMP names-record database or version provided for CBSA and IRCC.
A GCMS check is required each and every time any substantive action or decision is made on the application. So there are multiple GCMS checks on the applicant as the application proceeds through the process. Things can still slip through (there was a case a few years ago involving a person approved and allowed to take the oath, but who had been convicted of something like attempted murder between the test and interview and the oath ceremony . . . CIC lost an appeal of its effort to revoke his citizenship . . . a case which influenced the implementation of the current strict reverification of no prohibitions procedures), but generally this is intended to catch things like a PoE FOSS alert or a criminal arrest, right up to immediately prior to the taking of the oath.
And, again, the RCMP or CSIS clearances sometimes need to be updated, and again that is usually due to their expiration or something new triggering the need for an updated clearance.
Getting much more into what goes on behind the curtain than this (or going back to my original metaphor, seeing what goes on under-the-hood) is very difficult, since this aspect of processing is considered confidential, and much of it is very strictly concealed from public view.
The vast majority of applicants sail through the process smoothly, no diversions, no non-routine processing, no delays. Indeed, overall, for the last several years Statistics Canada shows that 93 percent of all citizenship application outcomes are successful. Obviously, a large percentage of these sail easily through the process.
Which means overall that most applicants (meaning more than half) can easily predict that they will become a citizen in relatively short order once they apply, and more confidently once they attend and pass the knowledge of Canada test. No need to even see eCas show "Decision Made."
But the number of applicants for whom there is a diversion on the path to citizenship is quite high. It is a small percentage, but a small percentage of hundreds of thousands is a number well into the thousands.
Most diversions from the routine track will, indeed, occur prior to the Decision Made. So, the number of applicants for whom problems arise after there is a decision made is relatively, comparatively less and probably a lot less.
It warrants emphasizing that generally applicants who are at risk for something going awry (either a little, resulting in some delay, like a CSIS clearance which historically can take a long time, or something big like a prohibition or fraud inquiry), after the decision made step, should already be aware they have some risks in this regard. Applicants know their circumstances. Some have real risks for what usually are rather apparent reasons.
Also note, there appears to be a significant number of applicants sidetracked after decision made but before being scheduled for the oath (again, most of whom I am confident are aware they are at risk for this). In contrast, the number of applicants scheduled for the oath whose application is sidetracked, so they are not allowed to take the oath and are then involved in further processing, is what appears to be rare.
hi there anyone can help me to know regarding this info. I passed my citizenship test nov 2017 still no DM I called many time got a info from cic saying everything looks ok there working on security check and tolled me my criminal records are clear thats fine only checking some security checkup I am not understanding why they are taking this long to make a DM ... anyone in same boat here..
The particular facts in a case matter.
My impression is your application was made under the rules which applied before Bill C-24 let alone Bill C-6, that you are approaching THREE years in process. This suggests the particulars of your case are looming large. I do not know, but I'd guess there is a residency or physical presence issue looming, rather than a background or security clearance. You probably have a better idea than anyone in the forum could.
If you applied in 2015 based on residency without meeting the actual physical presence test, that might explain the hold up.
No need to go into a lot of details, but if you could provide more information about your application that might help illuminate potential reasons for it being bogged down.
My IN-THE-DARK guess is that you applied prior to June 11, 2015, and that your total actual physical presence was either less than 1095 or not much over that, and you could be waiting for a referral to a Citizenship Judge for a hearing. BUT that really is an IN-THE-DARK guess.
Leaves me still very much in-the-DARK.
As I said, and have said many, many times, the particular facts and circumstances matter.
As I also said previously above, and many other times, the vast majority of QUALIFIED applicants have no problems, no diversions off the routine track from application to oath, no reason to worry.
As you apprehend and ask: the lapse of time since you passed the test in conjunction with no questions about meeting the residency requirement raises what's happening? what's going on? questions.
But the odds are good, still, there is nothing wrong, and probably nothing to worry about UNLESS YOU ARE AWARE of some reason to worry. You know your case. You know your background. You should know if there is any reason why IRCC might have concerns which would hold up your application.
Enough time has gone by to invite other in-the-DARK guesses, like whether there is a CSIS security check delay . . . but the CSIS security check delay does NOT happen randomly, not usually. Again, you know your case, and you know your background, YOU should have at least a ballpark idea if there is a potential security concern looming in your history. You are NOT so much in-the-DARK.
YOU, the person who knows your case better than anyone in the world and better than anyone in IRCC (assuming you are the one who filled out the information in the application), should have at least a ballpark idea if there is some reason why IRCC might question your travel history, your residency calculation, the truthfulness of the information you have provided.
If there is NO reason for a problem, odds are very, very good there is NO PROBLEM.
Probably time to make a webform query. May be time to telephone the help centre again to get another call agent's version. Make sure your contact information is current and correct.
Not time, yet, to make the ATIP application . . . take into account how a follow-up help centre call goes, what response you get from a webform case status query, and perhaps wait past a year to make the ATIP application.
I am pretty sure I gave them all correct informations. My application now just 10 month only I have another two month to wait like CIC information.. let's wait I hope I will get it ..I didn't do anything wrong ..i will wait...