I appreciate that you don’t want to discuss “being stuck” but could you share your insight on the unusual status of LPP being “not started” and the location still being “e-grant test ready”? I understand that it should be “in progress” and “review ready” to indicate active processing of LPP. This leads me to believe that “in queue for review” could mean a secondary review with a specialist officer, who may have a long queue. Could such a secondary review "queue" trump an urgent processing request? In other words, rendering my UP request moot?
I can only find one other recent reported case of LPP not started and location as test ready with LPP pending for a long time:
@jaydevadhikari, whose wife has had no movement since last year, but whom unlike my irregular self-employment and shoe-string lifestyle, has had stable regular employment along with her husband (who has had oath already).
It's just an unusual status to be; in limbo, with urgent processing neither approved nor denied.
I cannot say or even guess what the chances are your application will get expedited processing. I doubt anyone can.
As I noted, meeting the criteria for urgent processing does not mean IRCC will expedite processing. It might. It might not. There are undoubtedly some guidelines or criteria they use, in addition to the reasons they publicize, for choosing when to expedite processing. I do not know what factors into exercising their discretion.
But, in contrast, any non-routine processing would most likely preclude urgent/expedited processing. I am not entirely certain, but among the criteria for urgent processing I am fairly confident about, is that to get urgent processing the application must not be subject to any non-routine issues.
However, I would not interpret "
file is in queue for review by an officer" to necessarily mean the application has been referred for some kind of secondary review or other non-routine processing. Again, this could be about the request for urgent processing itself. But, yeah, it could be a reference to some type of non-routine processing and that would likely block the application from getting expedited processing (subject, however, to how compelling the case for urgent processing is; that is, I am sure some circumstances will push IRCC to expedite an application even though many others do not).
As noted, I don't know what this means for you.
More Re "secondary review with a specialist officer, who may have a long queue"
It is not clear that this is what is happening. If this is what is happening, yeah that would likely mean no urgent processing.
What is happening? How would you know? What might it be? How long will it take?
Something that blocks urgent processing, that's bad enough. But at the other end of the spectrum, could it be something that will, or might, result in a further and potentially long delay?
I am short on answers. But can ask more questions. Are you sure your application is "
stuck?"
I will say this, I don't think it is unusual for applicants to not know if a request for urgent processing has been, in effect, approved, or denied, unless and until actual actions taken on the application are such they indicate the application is being expedited or not, without any definite notice it is urgent processing or that the application will not get urgent processing. If I recall correctly, you said something like this yourself yesterday, that IRCC may not inform the applicant if urgent processing has been approved or denied.
For example: If you are scheduled for an interview next week, will that mean IRCC is processing your application urgently? Maybe, or maybe it is just a coincidence your application is now at that step.
If, however, you get a request for RQ-related documentation, easy inference, no urgent processing.
For many, it is just about waiting, and that can mean waiting to see how much time goes by before the next step action happens, and that happening then is about as much clue as they will get.
Some MPs are more helpful than others. Some not much.
I have not seen reports about how requests for urgent processing show up (or don't) in GCMS records obtained by ATIP.
Regarding --
". . . insight on the unusual status of LPP being “not started” and the location still being “e-grant test ready”? I understand that it should be “in progress” and “review ready” to indicate active processing of LPP."
The main reason I am no fan of micro-monitoring citizenship application processing is it has never seemed to be all that informative. I suppose this has, perhaps, changed
some since implementation of the tracker. But mostly all that seems to illuminate is there is this or that occasional activity showing that the application is in process, which is how it goes in practice anyway, what is happening anyway unless the application has been knocked off the mainstream processing track. So generally those details are not useful news, even if this or that precise detail seems like news to those who are micro-monitoring the progress of their application.
The Covid-pandemic and related disruptions and slowdowns have skewered timelines so badly it may seem like the tracker is offering real news, but so far as I have been following things the
same-old continues much the same: there is a great deal of variability in processing times, but mostly routine applications (that is routine, and not-complicated non-routine applications) are progressing through the process, sitting in one queue or another, moving along in order in the particular stream the application is in, which is usually the routine stream for the particular local office which is processing the application.
So I am not entirely up to speed in interpreting tracker notations or more recent ATIP generated GCMS records. Does not seem worth the effort. So I am not sure I can offer much.
When I see "
LPP," for example, I think of financial documents and tax planning, and things like "
Listed Personal Property," not "
Language, Prohibitions, and Physical Presence."
Regardless what the tracker or client's version of GCMS show, verification of language is either waiting on an interview or is not really at issue.
Prohibitions are checked multiple times, and the file can show this completed but actually it remains open until the oath itself is actually taken (thus, for example, if there is much of a gap in time between prohibitions completed and the oath, it is highly likely there will be another background prohibitions check done).
Neither of those is likely to be a reason further progress in processing is stalled. Well, prohibitions might if there is information indicating a criminality or security issue has come up, like a criminal name record hit during a routinely run GCMS check, which must be done any time any action is taken on a citizenship application file. Contrary to what is commonly said, including by help centre agents, the formal clearances are rarely holding things up. They can, but if that is what is holding things up that would typically be a relatively serious security concern and something the applicant should be able to easily figure out; these do
NOT come
out-of-the-blue.
Physical presence is a little more complicated. I do not know what "
not started" means, not in particular. For the vast majority of applicants, however, there is not likely to be any significant questions about the physical presence requirement, so it is probably examined and cleared in one setting, probably allocated just a part of an hour for the processing agent to assess and complete.
Unless some questions or concerns arise. If so, if there are some questions or concerns, there's a huge range in what then happens, ranging from just a bit of internet searching (I think I previously mentioned LinkedIn for example), maybe some phone calls, to verify certain details. Or it could amount to full blown RQ, with many variations in-between, or even a referral to CBSA and its NSSD to conduct an investigation. None of which is transparent, but behind the investigatory means and methods curtain, except to the extent the applicant gets RQ-related requests for information or documentation.
If something about the information in the application, or what is known about the applicant, triggers physical presence questions, and there is concern sufficient to trigger additional scrutiny (beyond just some questions in a PI interview with the applicant), yes this is likely to cause some delay. My guess is that many of the more slowly processed applications have been moved from the routine processing track to a question-residency (presence) track, including many of those regarding which the hold up is purportedly waiting on a criminality or security clearance. This does not mean there will be RQ. It could lead to that but not necessarily.
But even whether your application is "
stuck" or not is difficult to discern. Processing times are a tangled mess these days (some moving along quite quickly now, others wallowing in slow queues, making it really really hard to do comparisons) and it still does not take much to knock an application off track into lengthy delays, meaning the application is burdened with being in a long queue but not actually "
stuck" . . . just waiting in a longer line.
